 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
IN THE MUNICIPAL
COURT FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE CITY OF SEATTLE,
Plaintiff v. CHERI HONKALA and WARD MOREHOUSE, Defendants, Cause No. 371901 Cause No.
371902 ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS Defendant Morehouse and Defendant Honkala are charged in these consolidated cases with one count each of Obstructing under the Seattle Municipal Code. They are alleged to have intentionally and physically interfered with a public officer. Prior to the trial, the defendants have jointly moved to dismiss the charges against them, first because the facts do not provide a prima facie violation of the obstructing statute, second because the actions of the police on the date in question violated their rights to freedom of speech, and third because their conduct was de minimus under the Seattle Municipal Code. Having considered the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits in evidence, the briefs and documents on file in the case and the arguments of counsel, I now make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. On Monday,
November 29, 1999, trade ministers from various countries around the
world and delegates to the World Trade Organization ("WTO")
convened a series of meetings in Seattle, Washington. The meetings were planned to take place at
the Washington State Convention Center in downtown Seattle. One corner of the premises of the Convention
Center is on the southeast corner of the intersection of Seventh Avenue
and Pike Street. The Convention
Center has multiple entrances, one of which is on Pike Street between
Seventh and Eighth Avenues. The
United States Secret Service and local police agencies provided identification
documents to the attendees of the convention and designated security
procedures to insure the safety of those attendees.
Those with proper credentials as attendees of the WTO meetings
or the press were allowed inside the Convention Center. Over the
night of the 29-29 of November a security threat to the Washington State
Convention Center occurred, necessitating the evacuation and search
of the entire premises. As a
result, the attendees of the conference were not allowed into the Convention
Center until about 10:00 o'clock a.m. on November 29. Believing there to be significant concerns about the security, police
also set up police tape and personnel barriers in the vicinity of the
Pike and Seventh intersection. As part of
the planning for this event, the City of Seattle created a designated
protest zone near the Seventh and Pike intersections behind a concrete
"jersey" barrier and seven foot high chain link fence.
This fenced zone extended south from mid-block on Seventh Avenue
on the west side of the street to Pike Street, then east on Pike Street
to Eighth Avenue, and then south on Eighth Avenue to Pine Street, which
is the next street north from Pike Street. This protest zone was across the street lanes
from the Convention Center, and it allowed anyone behind the fence to
approach near to but across the street from the entrance door on Pike
Street used by some attendees of the convention.
There were no signs on the designated protest zone directing
protestors there, although police made announcements during the morning
of November 29 telling protestors it was available for use.
During that morning, police observed no protestors using the
fenced zone. The Defendants
Morehouse and Honkala both have significant experience with political
activism and are well known within their respective fields of protest.
Defendants have passionate and deeply held beliefs in opposition
to the activities of the governments that took part in the WTO meetings. Over the weekend of November 27 and 28, the defendant Morehouse
convened a mock "tribunal" which took testimony from various
witnesses regarding the alleged "crimes against humanity"
of selected large corporations. The
tribunal found complicity in the actions of some trade ministers attending
the WTO meetings. Pursuant to
those findings, the tribunal issued a "Citizens Arrest Warrant"
for the arrest of those found complicit.
At a meeting on the morning of November 29, the Defendant Honkala
and the Defendant Morehouse purposed to serve the Citizens Arrest Warrant
on the delegates and trade ministers, to raise the awareness of those
at the meetings of the tribunal's criticisms of the work of the WTO
and the allegedly "criminal" corporations. With a group
of about twenty other protestors, the defendants Morehouse and Honkala
walked from their gathering place east of downtown Seattle to the vicinity
of the Convention Center and finally arrived at Seventh Avenue and Pike
Street. The defendants and other
protestors gathered on the sidewalk on the northwest corner of the intersection
behind some yellow police tape placed there that morning by the police
officers posted to the area. There the defendant Morehouse read a prepared statement regarding
the contents of the Citizens Arrest Warrant to the group of protestors,
by now somewhat larger, are publicly announced his and defendant Honkala's
intent to "serve" the warrant on the named complicit attendees
of the WTO meetings. The defendants'
intention was not to actually place any person in custody, rather they
wanted to bring their issues to the awareness of the attendees of the
meetings. The defendants also directed other protestors
in the vicinity who were sympathetic to their cause to remain on the
sidewalk, thereby avoiding a large public disturbance. Although it is not clear by whom, the police
tape was broken before the defendants stepped into the street towards
the Convention Center. Seattle
Police Officers heard the speech and the intentions of the defendants
and closed ranks somewhat in the vicinity of the protestors. From this
point, the events were captured on the video camera of one of the local
news teams. Concluding their
speech, the defendants turned to face the street and the waiting police.
The defendants then took a mere two or three steps into the street
before they were stopped by officers. The confrontation involved some physical touching
and restraint of the defendants, some stumbling and loss of balance,
but there was no threat of real physical harm to either the officers
of the defendants. It is clear
from the videotape the defendants both attempted to push on through
the police officers and continue towards the Convention Center to accomplish
their "service" of the warrant.
The police arrested both of the defendants less than 30 seconds
after they stepped off the curb, and they failed to reach the designated
audience with the "Citizens Arrest Warrant". The police at the scene did not offer the defendants an alternative to crossing the street into the no-entry zone or any other assistance in peacefully serving or delivering their "Citizens Arrest Warrant". By the same token, neither of the defendants requested any such advice or assistance from the police. I find from the testimony and the totality of the circumstances the defendants expected some confrontation with the police, they expected the confrontation to by physical, and they were aware before they stepped off the curb they very possibly faced arrest. Conclusions
of Law Freedom
of Speech I find that
the defendants Morehouse and Honkala were exercising their right to
freedom of speech as guaranteed by the United States and the Washington
State constitutions. Their actions
in moving toward their intended audience for "service" of
delivery of the "Citizens Arrest Warrant" was an extension
of that right and is closely analogous to leafleting activities that
have been held to be protected speech.
I further conclude that the defendants were restricted in a significant
way from exercising this right by the actions of the police in preventing
the defendants from crossing the street and approaching the Convention
Center, and that this restriction burdened the defendants freedom of
speech. I further
find that the are where these events occurred was a public forum as
traditionally defined. This was,
however, a content neutral restriction. There is no evidence in the record from which
I could conclude that the defendants were stopped from crossing Pike
Street because of what they had to say.
The Police Officers were solely concerned with whether anyone
attempting to enter the Convention Center had the proper credentials. Moreover, there is no evidence that anyone
favoring the activities of the WTO who simply wanted to observe the
meetings would have received treatment different from that received
by the two defendants here, if they did not have the proper credentials. Under the
heightened standard of scrutiny I conclude the City of Seattle and its
police officers had a significant and important interest in providing
for the security of the attendees of the WTO meetings.
There were, by all accounts, hundreds if not thousands of attendees,
many who were high level government officials and who regularly live
under the threat of violence and with a constant security presence.
The Convention Center is a large complex and occupies more than
a city block of space. The checkpoints for security and the barriers
placed by the police were across the street and within yards of the
premises, although some distance from the entrance to the building. There were
other alternatives open to the protestors and the defendants to accomplish
their purpose. These included
the designated protest area which would have allowed access to an area
just across the street from the entrance to the convention center as
well as the open streets in the vicinity of the Convention Center, where,
by all accounts, there were delegates to the meetings who openly wore
their credentials. I must find, therefore, that the restrictions placed on the activities of the defendants in this case were reasonable restrictions given the time and the circumstances, the place, and the manner of the restriction, and they were not an unreasonable burden on the defendants' freedom of speech. I further conclude, as a preliminary manner to the trial in this cause under Seattle Municipal Code 12A.16.010(B), the Seattle Police officers who were allegedly obstructed by the actions of the defendants Honkala and Morehouse were acting lawfully in a governmental function. Defendants
have further moved to dismiss because, they argue, there is no dispute
regarding material facts in the case, and based on those facts, there
is no prima facie case that the officers were acting lawfully or that
the defendants obstructed the officers. The motion is to be heard solely on the briefing
presented by the parties and the affidavits submitted. Those materials demonstrate that the facts
are in dispute. If the version
of the facts offered by the City are accepted as the law requires, there
is a prima facie case that the defendants did intentionally and physically
interfere with the officers. De
Minimus I understand
the deeply held and passionate beliefs of the defendants Honkala and
Morehouse in this case. While
I will not comment on the validity of their cause or the advisability
of their means, I also understand the symbolic act they wished to undertake
and its protected status under constitutional law. I also cannot criticize, however, the actions
of the City and the police in restricting access to the Convention Center
and in taking action to prevent the two defendants from crossing into
the restricted zone. Neither
can I criticize the city for bringing charges against the defendants
for what appears to be, on the City's showing, a prima facie violation
of the law. Indeed, the actions of the City of Seattle
– its Civic Leaders, its Police Department, and its Attorney's Office
– have been at all times in this case in the best interest of all concerned:
the people of Seattle, the attendees of, and the critics of the WTO
convention. The mere presence of passionate political convictions
and a physical confrontation between protestors and police could have
sparked much more tragic events. It
is apparent, however, such events were not the intent of the defendants
Morehouse and Honkala and, in hindsight, were unlikely in this case. A de minimus
ruling is a statement by the court, which, after considering all the
facts and circumstances presented on the record, finds the interests
of justice will not be served by going forward with a criminal prosecution.
The defendants here tried to walk through a police line, peacefully
and without threat of physical harm.
While I find there are facts to support the prima facie case,
it is apparent that the actions of the defendants fall within a tolerance
or license that is not inconsistent with the purpose of the obstructing
statute, to allow the public officer a safe and certain opportunity
to serve the citizenry in carrying out police duties. Significant to my decision is that a part of
those police duties involves the protection of an individual's fundamental
constitutional rights. Moreover,
while the actions of the defendants in these particular circumstances
warranted arrest by police officers and these charges being brought,
those actions are not so significant as to warrant the condemnation
of conviction, especially in light of the cherished nature of the constitutional
rights upon which the City reasonably infringed. I find the interests of justice have been served here. These matters are dismissed.
Home | About KWRU | Take Action | Education | March For Our Lives | International Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign Technology training for KWRU provided by Human Rights Tech |
|
Home | About KWRU | Take Action | Education | March For Our Lives | International Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign Technology training for KWRU provided by Human Rights Tech |