Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
Remember Brooke Oberwetter, the D.C. woman who was arrested for dancing while listening to an iPod at the Jefferson Memorial? Oberwetter was one of a larger group of libertarian-leaning Washingtonians who gathered at the memorial to celebrate Jefferson's birthday by quietly dancing, and she ended up being the only one handcuffed and arrested after U.S. Park Police officers tried to break up the party. The whole episode was captured on videotape.
Radley Balko reports today that Oberwetter has filed a civil suit against the officer, Kenneth Hilliard, who arrested her last year. Notably, Oberwetter is represented in her case by big time Virginia attorney Alan Gura, the same lawyer who successfully argued the Heller 2nd Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Seems likely the mere presence of Gura will get this thing settled pretty quickly, unless of course the attorney and his client plan to use the suit to make a larger point. Oberwetter's complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the claim that Hilliard violated her 1st and 4th amendment rights when he arrested her.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Good luck to Brooke and Alan. The arrest was silly. Bivens claims are very rarely settled or decided in favor of the plaintiff. Hopefully this is an exception.
It's a 9/11 thing.
Winning this case is part of taking back the freedoms GW Bush tried to take away. Best wishes Brooke!
I wrote about this last year. As someone who has dealt with the National Park Police and the National Capitol Police on numerous occasions for first amendment demonstrations, I've learned is that all you need are permits.
I completely understand the right of freedom of assembly and have legally exercised it in Washington, but when it comes to federal property, aka the American People's property, permits are needed, even to have a silent dance party with 18 people.
A large group of people showing up on federal property late at night with an unknown motive will draw the police. Moreover, there were no safeguards in place by the organizers to prevent the 25th person from showing up.
What if the monument was damaged? Or the floor scuffed by shoes? Their peaceful demonstration would have cost taxpayers money. However, if they would have obtained permits, the responsibility would fall on to the organizers shoulders. Yet the organizers failed to go through the proper channels to legally hold their demonstration on federal property and when asked to leave they were rude to the police and provoked the arrest.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this case is progresses.
Shirley, you jest. how are they going to scuff the floor more than any of the 1000 obese tourists who go through there any day? How about the flash mob at Grand Central. Would you have arrested those people for standing still?
Schiller, your basically saying that although they knew exactly what the rules as to what needs a permit were and took care to stay within them, they should still have had to get a permit because they could have hypothetically broken the rules. That makes no sense at all.
As for the other thing, right on HCE. Also if they did damage something that would actually be grounds for arresting someone.
I'm saying, if you plan to hold a vigil/rally/dance/demonstration at any monument on federal property, you should get permits. The process is really simple and had they gone through the proper protocol they would not have had any issues with the police.
Unless, of course, the whole point was to provoke a confrontation in the first place. Wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
...and this was a libertarian action. Permits don't set to well with those guys.
Dancing Libertarians. I just found the name for my new band.
If Libertarians want people to rally around their cause then they need their attractive young female party members to illustrate the true meaning of liberty by protesting topless.
This also applies to Republicans and Democrats.
Call me a traditionalist, but I think if you don't break a law you shouldn't be arrested. I know that line of thinking got quaint over the last eight years, but still.
(And please don't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting cops never wrongly arrest people.)
Personally I think that it was ridiculous and wrong that she was arrested, but I also think it's ridiculous and "wrong" that she's filing a lawsuit seeking compensation.
If someone shoves me around, cuffs me, arrests me and holds me prisoner in abuse of their power, you can bet your ass I'm going to sue theirs.