New & Noteworthy...

Protesters file suit against Bratt police chief

Email this to a friend.

By BOB AUDETTE

BRATTLEBORO - The American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont filed a lawsuit last week against Brattleboro Police Chief Eugene Wrinn for arresting four people who protested during a speech by Gov. James Douglas at the Latchis Theater on March 30, 2009.

In addition to Wrinn, two other police officers - designated as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 - were named in the suit.

Douglas was in town to talk about the economic recovery act when Jonathan Crowell, Amy Frost, Eesha Williams and Elizabeth Wood rose from their seats and held up signs calling for the closure of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in the first three minutes of the speech.

The signs read "Veto Nuclear Jim" and "Shut VY."

The protesters were silent throughout the three minutes, though a couple of exclamations were heard from the crowd, urging them to sit down.

Douglas did not veer from the script during the entire protest and, in fact, proceeded as if the protesters were not even in the audience.

The protesters were removed without resistance by police, arrested, handcuffed and taken to the police station where they were photographed and had their fingerprints taken.

A link to a video recording of the protest is posted on the ACLU's Web site - www.acluvt.org.

The quartet were cited for violating Vermont's disorderly conduct law, which states "A person who, with intent to cause public inconvenience, or annoyance or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... Without lawful authority, disturbs any
Advertisement
Quantcast
lawful assembly or meeting of persons ..." is subject to arrest. The Windham County State's Attorney's Office declined to press charges against the protesters.

Manchester attorney Stephen Saltonstall told the Reformer that courts have long prohibited police from using disorderly conduct laws as pretext to arrest protesters.

"I'd expect this lack of respect for free speech rights in a dictatorship, but not in Brattleboro," he said. "Why were these folks arrested? What possible legitimate reason could there have been? It seems to me that any high school graduate or anybody who has taken a civics class knows that people have a right to protest peacefully. I'm amazed that they were arrested."

The four are also being represented by ACLU staff attorney Dan Barrett, who said the police violated the protesters constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech and assembly and their right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from arbitrary seizure and search.

The Vermont courts have ruled that a disruption has to be substantial for charges to be filed, he said.

"What you have to look at is the effect of the alleged disruptive behavior," said Barrett.

In addition, said Barrett, the police officers are not entitled to a qualified immunity defense.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

"Our clients' First and Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time the arrests were made," said Barrett.

David Sleigh, who represented Michael Colby and Boots Wardinski in Vermont v. Colby, said the Brattleboro police have no justification for their actions, especially in light of a ruling in favor of his client.

"They're done," he said.

Colby and Wardinski were arrested for protesting former Iraq Ambassador John Negroponte's speech at the 2006 St. Johnsbury Academy commencement.

The men were arrested not for disorderly conduct, but for attempted disorderly conduct.

"The Supreme Court didn't think much of that argument," said Sleigh.

Colby shouted that Negroponte had blood on his hands and was "immediately pounced upon and roughed up by local police," said Sleigh.

The Supreme Court found that there was no meaningful disruption of the commencement. The charges were thrown out by the Vermont Supreme Court on March 13, 2009, 17 days before the protesters were arrested in Brattleboro.

Sleigh said there was doubt that the Brattleboro police officers were in the wrong because the protesters at Douglas' speech were even less disruptive than his clients.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the police officers' actions violated their constitutional rights, to prevent the police officers from doing so in the future and to award the protesters damages, costs and fees.

"One thing that will hopefully come out of this is that Brattleboro police will get some training and not arrest people for expressing their rights as citizens," said Saltonstall.

Crowell, of Newfane, recently saw a lawsuit against Brattleboro police officers thrown out by federal court.

Crowell and Samantha Kilmurray had filed a suit after they were stunned with Tasers in 2007 for trespassing on a vacant lot because they were concerned about what they called inappropriate property development in Brattleboro.

Frost lives in Guilford and Williams and Woods live in Dummerston.

Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com, or at 802-254-2311, ext. 273.