The protesters then sue, claiming that their rights were violated when the police illegally forced them to leave the property by threatening them with arrest. The trial court then granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the officer "never told Davies that she
would be booked into jail, or that she would be arrested, or that she was in
violation of any law." The Court of Appeal affirms.
But I gotta tell you, that's not the way I read the facts, and I think a lot of people -- reasonable people -- would agree with me on that one.
The officer had a body worn camera, so we know perfectly well what the officer said. He first told the protester that mall security told them to leave, and if they didn't do so voluntarily:
“You’ll be ejected for the day” since “it’s their property [so] they’re allowed to do
that [and] we don’t want to get into any trespassing issues here . . . because if
a private place tells you to leave . . . then refusal to do so is 602.1(a) of the
Penal Code."
Does that sound like a threat to arrest someone if they don't leave? It certainly sounds like it to me.
But it gets even clearer. The protester then asks the officer: “Is there any way you could issue me a
ticket?” (She adds: "The only reason why I would like a ticket is just to show that we did
not want to leave.”) Here's the officer's response:
“No because . . . there’s no issues here. If you refuse to leave and they want to press charges . . . you’ll
just get booked into jail for it with a citation."
Uh, that fairly clearly sounds like a threat to arrest someone. The whole "you'll just get booked into jail" thing seems pretty unambiguous, no?
I understand that, after the lawsuit is filed, the County of Riverside's litigation position was that it's not their regular policy to threaten to arrest people for legally protesting in shopping malls, and that “[t]he
Department does not contend that if a mall owner or manager does not want
expressive activity taking place in certain, publicly-accessible part of the
mall, that Deputies can lawfully arrest peaceful protestors who remain there
for not complying with the mall’s rules.”
But I think a reasonable factfinder could conclude that, at least here, the individual officer did indeed think that it was legal, and proper policy, to threaten to arrest someone in precisely such a setting.
So it seems to me that there's an actual controversy here. Defendant's policy may be X, but when the Defendant does the opposite of X, that's a legitimate dispute -- and lawsuit.
And I think that the officer did indeed threaten to arrest the person.
Indeed, did so fairly unambiguously.
