Occupy the Bill of Rights

CityWatch, Nov 22, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 93

RETHINKING LA - The Bill of Rights took a beating over the last several days, serving as a reminder that the rights we take for granted are the rights that go missing when we need them the most.

The most recent assault on the 1st and 4th Amendments came at the hands of University of California campus police as they responded to peaceful students sitting with their arms locked and heads bowed on the quad of the Davis campus.

Captured on video that has gone around the world over the weekend, the Lieutenant in charge of the UC Davis Campus Police riot detail stepped forward and held up a can of pepper spray, then proceeded to calmly spray the faces of the passive students, walking down the row of students with the professional demeanor of an exterminator spraying bugs.

The students who witnessed the pepper spray assault began to chant “Shame on you!” while maintaining their distance.

The video is disturbing to watch as the imbalance of power unfolds and riot police use pepper spray to “coerce” passive students who are sitting on the ground. Then an amazing thing happens, the witnesses begin to chant “Shame on you!” to the riot police who find themselves with no plausible opponent. Their power fails them.

As the police shuffle backwards, the witnesses conduct a “mic check” relay and echo the words of a speaker who announces “You can go!” The Lt. in charge stands with red cans of pepper spray in both hands, backed up by riot police with crowd control shotguns, and as the students give them permission to put down their weapons and leave, the riot police back up and depart.

The outrage was immediate yet the UC Davis Chief of Police, Annette Spicuzza, told the Sacramento Bee that police used the pepper spray after they were surrounded. “There was no way out of that circle,' Ms Spicuzza said. 'They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation.”

Chief Spicuzza’s recount of the incident was immediately contradicted by the video. She has since been put on administrative leave pending an investigation, along with the two UC Davis police officers who were captured on video pepper spraying the passive students.

UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi reportedly ordered the campus police to remove approximately a dozen tents that had been erected on Thursday in support of the Occupy movement and in protest of the heavy handed police treatment at other Occupy encampments.

Outrage over Katehi’s handling of the Occupy UC Davis camp resulted in calls for her resignation but none as powerful as the silent treatment that she received from hundreds of Davis students who simply sat quietly along the sidewalk as she walked to her car after a press conference.

The police action included riot police from other UC campuses as well as the City of Davis which begs the question, “Where on earth would students express themselves if not on the quad of their University?”

It also begs the question, “Who is training the riot police who operate on college campuses as if the schools are sovereign nations outside the law?”

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled in 2002 that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent passive protesters was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.

Apparently Chancellor Katehi had no “reasonable officers” at her disposal.

The United State Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled in 2011 that the use of pepper spray and baton on a person who did not present a safety threat or flight risk was excessive under the 4th Amendment.

In both cases, the court held that the law enforcement officers were not entitled to “qualified immunity” because their conduct was unconstitutional.

The State of California is the employer of record for the UC Davis Police Department which makes everybody in California responsible for speaking up, not just as spectators or witnesses, but as the owners of the asset that these officers are charged with protecting.

The incident map for UC Davis indicates that the most common crime on campus is “bike theft” with “petty theft” running a close second. It is against this Mayberry background that the University of California as a whole must justify the presence of riot police on its campuses throughout the state.

Five years ago, the University of California paid out $220,000 to a student who was the victim of a Taser attack that was also captured on a cell phone in a video that went viral.

The UCLA police officer responsible for the Taser attack had previously shot and wounded a homeless man in a campus building, choked a man with his baton in front of a Fraternity house, been suspended from the UCLA police force and fired from the Long Beach Police Force.

Lest anyone think that the University of California is operating a simple security service, it should be noted that the UC Police starting salary is $65,556 while the LAPD starting salary is $48,462.

The UC Davis riot police actually get paid 35% more than the LAPD for a duty that typically consists of providing a uniformed presence on campus with occasional bike theft investigations, “elevator phone check” patrols and other community policing duty.

Calls to the City of Davis Police Department were met with immediate instructions to call the UC Davis Police Department, in spite of repeated requests to file a police crime report. Sgt. Frank Penedoro was quite specific in his refusal to accept a criminal complaint against the UC Davis officer responsible for the pepper spray assault.

The deferential treatment given to campus police is not unique to the small town of Davis and is actually quite common. For example, the LAPD has a memorandum of understanding with the campus police at USC that includes a division of duties and authorizes the USC campus police to respond to crimes in the surrounding community.

UCLA has a student, staff and employee population of 75,000 which means that the UCLA campus police are responsible for 25% more people than the City of Davis.

The University of California Police Force is not a small town force but is actually well-funded in contrast to the surrounding police departments. It also operates with inappropriate autonomy as is evidenced by the City of Davis Police Department’s refusal to respond to a report of a crime committed by a UC Davis police officer.

The same request to report a crime was rejected by the UC Davis PD Watch Commander, Sgt. Beerman, who simply repeated “I’m not going to take a criminal complaint.”

The people of California should be outraged that the Lt. responsible for the pepper spray attack had a base salary of $116,454 last year while the cost of attending the University of California has more than doubled since 2005.

The UC Regents recently voted to approve tuition increases of 18% over last year’s rate due to a budget crisis but they contradicted that austerity commitment by approving large pay raises for University executives.

Our communities and schools are occupied by uniformed police departments that operate with autonomy, independently of local municipal oversight, and with riot gear that collects dust and provides overpaid and underchallenged officers with an incentive to “protect” themselves from peaceful demonstrators who simply exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

It is imperative that the people of Los Angeles take this opportunity to advise the City of LA on the appropriate procedures for honoring the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of the protesters who are part of Occupy LA.

The City of LA has a very expensive track record when it comes to handling protests. The City of LA paid out millions of dollars after the Democratic Convention when the LAPD was charged with “an orchestrated police riot.”

More recently, the LAPD came under attack for the “May Day Mêlée” which resulted in charges of excessive force from victims that included a National Lawyer's Guild observer and members of the press. The LAPD settlement was reported to cost $13 million.

Since then, the LAPD has earned accolades for its commitment to community policing and for its unique approach to the Occupy LA movement that includes passive observation and unobtrusive presence.

This peaceful occupation of City Hall should not be taken for granted.

It is imperative that the people of Los Angeles speak clearly and loudly to the Mayor, the City Council, and the Police Chief if they want the City of Los Angeles to fully support the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of those who petition their government, of those who protest, and of those who embrace peace while speaking out against injustice.

It was just last year that a city employee sat before the City Council and explained “the City of LA has no purview over the 1st and 4th Amendments, these are federal issues.” Not one member of the City Council said “Wait a minute...” Instead, this misinformation was allowed to stand unchallenged and a resolution in support of 1st and 4th Amendment rights was rejected.

The irony here is that even poll workers in Los Angeles are required to take a Loyalty Oath, committing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California.

It is imperative that the people of Los Angeles take time from their busy schedules to pay attention for just long enough to remind the Mayor, the City Council, and the Chief of Police of their sworn oath of office and to let them know that in Los Angeles, we fully expect them to honor the Bill of Rights and to protect the people who exercise their constitutional rights.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .) Graphic credit: punditkitchen.com

CityWatchLA - Breaking the Law and playing dumb

CityWatch, Pub: Dec 10, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 98

The laws that require the City of Los Angeles to conduct its business in an open and participatory manner are regularly trounced by people who don't know any better or who simply feign ignorance. Either way, it demonstrates a significant need for oversight and reform at City Hall.

The Brown Act, named after its author, Assemblyman Ralph M. Brown, and passed by the California State Legislature in 1953, guarantees the public the right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies that include neighborhood councils, City Commissions, and the City Council.

Unfortunately, the 57 year-old law is not required reading by the very people who are in the best position to violate it as demonstrated by the regularity with which it gets abused.

LA's City Hall is manned by a security detail that requires people to utter the phrase "The Brown Act" in order to invoke the State Law guaranteed rights, an odd approach to public participation, especially since it wasn't too long ago that those same officers were unaware of the phrase. It was the public that insisted that the Brown Act covered the public from the front door to the gavel.

LA's Police Commission is staffed by very polite people who seem completely unfazed by Ralph M. Brown's legacy, again offering the public an opportunity to educate those in charge of enforcing the law.

LA's Department of Water and Power Commission is staffed by City Attorneys who waste no time jumping on complaints and deflecting criticism, but who are completely unable to address the simple fact that the Brown Act requires a do-over if people are prevented from freely attending meetings.

If the Brown Act is violated at the front door, it is safe to say that those in charge are not diligent in enforcing compliance and the public should be diligent about agendas, reports, actions, and participation.

The upside to the tremendous burden that this puts on the public is the simple fact that legal fees are recoverable which means that the remedy or "cure" for the public is a do-over and any legal assistance is recoverable.

The California Public Records Act, (CPRA) also referred to as California Government Code Section 6250, guarantees the public the right to review documents, reports, and other records including digital files, as a fundamental and necessary right of every person in the state.

The CPRA is also not required reading by the very people who are in the best position to violate it as demonstrated by the inconsistencies within City Hall.

The LADOT lists instructions for records requests on its website, rules that are repeated by staff when requests are made. The problem is that they require payment in advance for information that has not yet been reviewed. It's the other way around. Requested information can be reviewed and if copies are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged. But, most importantly, simply reviewing documents does not come with a fee.

The LADOT also says "Please allow 10-14 working days to receive your requested documents. Absolutely no rush orders will be accepted."

The CPRA, by contrast, says "Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor."

City Planning doesn't accept verbal requests, and then when they are put in writing, they must be sent to the correct person or they simply languish in limbo, violating the 10 day window of required response. Apparently "I'm sorry, you've come to the wrong person!" is still an option at City Planning.

The City of LA is not alone in its unequal and illegal interpretation of the California Public Records Act. Both Metro and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are staffed by employees well-trained in the "I'm sorry, you've come to the wrong person!" approach to public service. Typically, locating the correct staffer is enough to make even the most intrepid member of the public simply give up and fade away.

By design? Regardless, it's illegal and once again, the remedy is to correct the situation and the legal fees are recoverable.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

LA's City Council recently engaged in a discussion of the 1st Amendment and an LADOT staffer pointed out that the 1st Amendment "came under federal purview" and was not the responsibility of the City of LA. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The City of Los Angeles has run afoul of the 1st Amendment on more than one occasion, costing the city significant amounts of money in legal fees and settlements. The City of LA deals with the 1st Amendment on a regular basis, from newspaper racks on the public right-of-way to tourist attractions such as the Venice Beach Boardwalk and Hollywood Boulevard.

A federal judge recently ruled that LA's lottery system for vendor permits on the Venice Boardwalk was a violation of the law and issued an injunction that paved the way for a 1st Amendment "Freedom of Speech" lawsuit by those who were cited by the LAPD.

Another federal judge ruled in favor of "superheroes" who dress up and pose for tourists on Hollywood Boulevard, defending their right to perform and ask for tips as a 1st Amendment guaranteed "Freedom of Speech" issue that was violated when the LAPD cited the characters.

Critics point to the City of LA's inability to train its staff on the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, and the 1st Amendment as evidence that the public needs to have greater authority over City Hall and its adherence to the law.

Others claim that the City's bumbling over agendas and motions is a smokescreen that prevents the public from focusing on violations of California's prohibition against the gift of public goods, a charge that comes up with increasing regularity in land use issues, or from noticing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) powerful deterrents to public participation.

Through it all, former Los Angeles councilwoman Ruth Galanter puts things in perspective by reminding us "I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence."

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

CityWatchLA - The Politics of Liability

CityWatch, Nov 12, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 90

Community members working to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods encounter many obstacles but none is as insurmountable as City Hall’s arbitrarily imposed threat of municipal liability.

City Council recently convened a joint meeting of the Rules & Elections Committee and the Energy & Environment Committee, opening itself up to concerns over a potential Brown Act violation which was handily sidestepped by issuing a public notice declaring the event a Special Meeting of the City Council. Liability? Protests were summarily dismissed. The single topic meeting addressed several topics including Charter Reform, Citizen Commissions, Representative Government, LADWP Oversight, LADWP Reform and Governance, LADWP Board composition, the creation of the LADWP Inspector General / Ratepayer Advocate position, and a budget to support the Office of Public Accountability.

Current City Council actions related to the upcoming DWP Reform Ballot Measure include stripping the original proposal of its budget commitment and any obligations to perform. The neutering of the Ballot Measure was justified with the explanation that “The City of Los Angeles might get sued! If a promise is made then the city is liable for its performance.”

When City Hall is committed to acting, liability is rarely a concern and legal standards are apparently negotiable.

But when City Hall wants to say “No!” but without the bitter aftertaste, they say yes and smile affirmatively then invoke the well-rehearsed “We’d love to help but concerns over liability prevent us from moving forward.”

When newspaper racks appear overnight and block access to the sidewalk or other street furniture, the public is told that to restrict the distribution of newspapers is to violate the 1st Amendment, opening the City of Los Angeles up to liability.

Community members advocating for traffic calming measures such as roundabouts, bulbouts, and refuge islands, are told that such innovations could confuse motorists, opening the City of Los Angeles up to liability.

Cyclists advocating for the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights experienced rejection, hearing from the LADOT that references to the 1st and 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “fall under the federal purview” and that interfering with the federal government opens the City of Los Angeles up to liability.

Liability is no longer a legal standard in LA, it is simply a tool for imposing insurmountable obstacles on the public while liberating City Hall of a reciprocal commitment to performance.

Los Angeles will be well on its way to becoming a Great City when liability is no longer a political tool but an element of accountability that is used objectively and fairly to ensure the equitable and fair delivery of City Services to the people of Los Angeles.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

LAPD: The Heavy Hand of the Law!

“While riding a bike for transportation is a tribute to many of the basic ideas upon which this country was founded - common sense, self-reliance, and closeness with the land, to name a few - it is also, in many ways, a slap in the face to contemporary American culture.” Robert Hurst in “The Art of Urban Cycling"

A large group of cyclists rode down Sunset Boulevard. If they had been driving automobiles, we would call it traffic, congestion, rush hour, our quotidian dose of gridlock, LA's legacy or any of a number of names. But they're on bikes and the ride is called the LA Critical Mass. It's a regular bike ride consisting of cyclists who ride for all sorts of reasons, coming from all directions and riding as a group through the streets of Los Angeles, all in a celebration of the fact that "We are Traffic!"

The LAPD responded to the sudden presence of so many cyclists by sending 12 Officers in 6 squad cars. They picked out the most threatening and dangerous cyclist in the crowd and immediately went to work making the streets of Los Angeles safer for motorists.

"CD" indicates that the approaching officers greeted her by screaming at her "Do you have any warrants out for your arrest? Are you on probations? Do you have any drugs or weapons on you?" They ordered her to put her possessions on the ground, to put her hands on her head, then turned her around, grabbed her wrists and put her in handcuffs.

They called for a female assist who then grabbed "CD" and told her to "spread'em" and then "very thoroughly frisked me everywhere, saying that she was searching for drugs and/or weapons!"


"CD" was given a ticket for "STOPPING ON SIDEWALK BLOCKING TRAFFIC" which is an infraction. (The Officer may have mixed up Crosswalk and Sidewalk - Excellent!)

There are a couple of things wrong with this scenario, the first being that it is completely unbelievable that "CD" posed a such a threat to the 12 police officers that it was necessary to submit her to such a thorough and humiliating experience.

The second thing that is wrong with this scenario is the fact that the Police Department has a very specific protocol for dealing with an "Illegal Assembly." If the 12 Officers who responded to the LACritical Mass made a decision that the ride constituted an illegal assembly, law enforcement present at the scene must then announce to the crowd that the crowd must disperse. The Dispersal Order is very specific on the process.

Nowhere in the Dispersal Order does it say, "pick someone from the crowd, handcuff her, yell at her, frisk her thoroughly looking for drugs and weapons, then issue her a poorly-written ticket for an infraction."

"CD" reports that two guys stopped to make sure everything was okay and that they stayed until the end. "Thank god. I didn't even know them. Which is always a great reminder of how amazing some people are."

The amazing people of Los Angeles deserve better from our Police Department.

If you're a fan of the 1st Amendment, give City Council President Garcetti a call and ask him to look into this case. It's summer time, the evenings are warm, it's entirely possible that there will be groups of cyclists on the streets. It would be great to have a well-informed Police Department capable of dealing with a crowd without having to get aggressive.

If you're a fan of the 4th Amendment, give City Council Transportation Chair Wendy Greuel a call and ask her to look into the case. It's always a good time to be secure in our persons and property, free of unreasonable search and seizure.

It's up to us to work with our Leadership in making Los Angeles a Great City.

Call Council President Garcetti @ 213- 473-7013 or councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org

Call Councilwoman Greuel @ 213-473-7002 or councilmember.greuel@lacity.org

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights #12: The 1st Amendment

In the two days since the release of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, (formerly the Bicyclist Bill of Rights) discussion, discourse and debate have ensued. The title of the document, the content, the purpose, the audience, the inappropriate use of an exclamation point in the conclusion and the cavalier absence of an apostrophe in the title were all and still are topics on the table as the cycling community evaluates the document that lays down the basic rights cyclists possess when they take to the streets on a bike.

Of the 12 rights articulated in the CBR, the 12th right seems to leave the largest number of people scratching their heads and wondering how to apply it to cyclists basic right to ride. After all, it’s the free speech amendment. As much as riding a bike, solo or with a group, can be construed as a statement of sorts, the intent of the authors was to exercise the 1st Amendment right to assemble peaceably in the public place as a deterrent to law enforcement attempts to intimidate, harass or break up groups of cyclists riding together.

• Cyclists' Bill of Rights #12: Cyclists have the right to peaceably assemble in the public space, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.”

Simply put, if on a group ride, law enforcement approaches and instructs the cyclists that the group is an illegal assembly because they have no parade permit, the response is “We’re exercising our right to assembly peaceably in the public space, in this case the streets.”

When cyclists ramp up the interaction into a 1st Amendment protected claim of the “right to assemble,” law enforcement is now bound to address the “right to assemble” issue, not the traffic issues that they usually focus on.

Law Enforcement’s appropriate response is to call for a Supervisor. (Cyclists should have already done this once the patrol officers initiated contact)

Law Enforcement must then:

• Identify themselves and declare the gathering an illegal assembly.

• Identify the media observation zone. (Everybody follow DJ Chickenleather!)

• Give the instruction to disperse and the amount of time the group has to disperse.

• Give instructions on the route the group should take to disperse. (Never toward the massed Law Enforcement officers. Probably in the direction the cyclists were headed before they were stopped by the police!)

Witness the MacArthur Park incident last year when the LAPD failed to clearly articulate their claim that the gathering was an illegal assembly, their failure to give the group the opportunity to leave and their failure to provide safe refuge for the media. This failure on the part of the LAPD had significant ramification for the department and resulted in policy revisions, additional training and a codification of the appropriate responses to an “illegal assembly” incident)

Witness the most recent USC incident when the streets were filled with people sitting in the street. LAPD arrived, clearly articulated that it was an illegal assembly, clearly gave a three-minute warning and a demand to disperse and then clearly gave the route for exit and offered those in the streets the opportunity to leave.

The catch-22 for law enforcement officers is this:

If they pull over a group of cyclists for an “illegal assembly” then their response is limited to addressing an illegal assembly and they must then go through the illegal assembly steps concluding with the instruction to disperse aka “keep riding!”

If they pull over a group of cyclists simply to lecture, ticket for minor violations, ticket for fictional violations, misapply “impeding traffic” and “leaving the bike lane” restrictions or any of the myriad tactics commonly applied to discourage group rides, cyclists simply claim 1st Amendment protection and ask for a supervisor which stops the hassle patrol and starts the illegal assembly process, all of which concludes with the instruction to disperse aka “keep riding!”

This may seem a bit obtuse and it may seem a bit extreme but consider the environment in which we ride, not just physically as we dodge potholes, opening doors and other obstacles innumerable but also the social and political climate that still finds it shocking when two or more cyclists simply ride in the same direction at the same time and at the same speed.

Cyclists are expected to share the lane with buses, trucks, SUV’s, minivans, motorhomes, automobiles and motorcycles. But when a cyclist shares the lane with another cyclist, the typical response is “you’re impeding traffic!”

Last year two cyclists were riding on PCH along a stretch that had no shoulder. They were riding in tandem in the outside lane. The cyclists were hit from behind by a catering truck and killed instantly. The driver explained to deputies that he did not step hard on the brakes because his passenger was standing behind him and cooking hot food.

Most disconcerting about the incident was the significant discussion spent on the fact that the cyclists were riding in the lane. Apparently the cyclists didn’t know each other but they either met up and were riding in sync (a common habit that occurs throughout the city when one cyclist comes across another cyclist going the same direction) or one was passing the other within the lane. Nevertheless, it’s amazing that the community’s shock at the deaths was tempered by the repeated observation that “they shouldn’t have been riding in tandem like that.”

Just this past week, four cyclists riding 2 by 2 in the #2 lane of Virgil, on the approach to a red light at Melrose, signaled and took control of the #1 lane and then continued into the left turn lane. The car in the #1 lane continued to accelerate toward the red light, (distracted, drunk, we never found out) and had to stop abruptly when he found himself behind cyclists executing a vehicular left turn on the approach to a red light.

An LAPD Supervising Sgt. Assigned to the Rampart Division witnessed this and promptly pulled over the cyclists because they were “impeding traffic and it was unsafe.” (All on the approach to a red light? The motorist accelerating at the red was of no interest to him. The reason it was unsafe to the Sgt. was based on the fact that cyclists are smaller and more vulnerable than automobiles, therefore cycling on the streets is unsafe.)

This incident included lectures on everything from helmets, illumination, CVC requirements of cyclists and even group rides! Three additional squad cars arrived backed up by a helicopter. The back-up officers, none of whom witnessed the incident, still felt more than comfortable explaining what’s wrong with group rides. (Riding as a group with no permit is wrong but Rampart allows it as long as there are no problems.)

The stories of inequities on the street abound but the bottom line is that the police still get calls from the community consisting of “There is a large number of cyclists all riding on the street and in the same direction!” Instead of dismissing these calls, law enforcement jumps.

“Tactical Alert! There are cyclists on the street, all riding in the same direction. Let’s stop them, lecture them on safety, threaten them with multiple tickets for pedal reflectors and bicycle licenses and then demonstrate how cool we are by only ticketing the ones we really don’t like. All available officers! Get the helicopter!”

(It gets worse physically. Last year a CHP officer chased the Montrose riders on Mulholland because a motorist called in the group ride. The cyclists were flying. The CHP officer used his car to cut off the cyclists while at speed, forcing them to a stop and causing some to crash including the leader who hit the CHP car.)

(It gets worse legally. Last year Pasadena attempted to pass a law restricting the rights of cyclists on the streets on Pasadena only to encounter CVC section 21 which restricts a municipality from regulating bicycling on non-freeway roads.)

Imagine if pedestrians and motorists were treated the same way.

“Officer, there is a large number of pedestrians on Colorado Blvd. They have filled the sidewalks, sometimes spilling onto the street. They mass at the intersections, making it difficult to get through the crowd. It must be organized because they are all carrying shopping bags. I saw a flyer and it seems that the merchants have organized an event. A shopping event. I think they call it a “Sale.” The pedestrians don’t seem to actually know each other but they are definitely going into the same stores so it must be organized. Do something!”

or,

“Officer, there are a large number of motorists massing on Hollywood Blvd. They do this every day at 5 pm. They fill the streets, they honk, they rev their engines and then they race through the green light and then they quickly stop and wait behind the car in front of them and then they honk and rev and then they race onto the 101 Freeway ramp where they wait and rev and honk. They do this everyday at 5pm. They’re obviously organized! They must be stopped! Can’t you find their leader? I see the same cars, I see the same drivers. Do something!”

Absurd? Yes! That’s the point.

It’s not only absurd to hassle or restrict a group of people based on their mode of transportation, it’s a violation of our basic civil rights and it’s unacceptable.

“While riding a bike for transportation is a tribute to many of the basic ideas upon which this country was founded - common sense, self-reliance, and closeness with the land, to name a few - it is also, in many ways, a slap in the face to contemporary American culture.” Robert Hurst in “The Art of Urban Cycling”

"I think people are entitled to march without a permit. When you have a few hundred thousand people on the street you have permission." -- Tom Hayden

***********************************************************

From The Police Commission MacArthur Park hearings:

The Dispersal Order:

Once a decision is made that an assembly is unlawful, law enforcement present at the scene must then announce to the crowd that the crowd must disperse. According to the LAPD Emergency Operations Guide, Volume 5, “Prior to dispersing an unlawful assembly, officers shall give the following Dispersal Order to those participating in the unlawful assembly. The Dispersal Order shall be read verbatim:”

"I am (rank and officer’s name), a police officer to the City of Los Angeles. I hereby declare this to be an unlawful assembly and, in the name of the people of the State of California, command all those assembled at (give specific location) to immediately disperse, which means to break up this assembly. If you do not do so, you may be arrested or subject to other police action.

Other police action may include the use of less lethal munitions, which could cause significant risk of serious injury to those who remain. Section 409 of the Penal Code prohibits remaining present at an unlawful assembly. If you remain in the area which was just described, regardless of your purpose in remaining, you will be in violation of Section 409. The following routes of dispersal are available: (give the most convenient route(s) of dispersal) You have __ minutes (give a reasonable amount of time – take into consideration the number of participants, location of the event and number of exit routes) to disperse."

A proper dispersal is necessary to ensure that all present are aware of the fact they are to leave the area; that they know what routes to take. Without such an order, any arrest for unlawful assembly will be legally insufficient.