Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: UC Davis Lt John Pike violated protesters 4th Amendment rights

Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 11:31 p.m. EST by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Heres the gist of it: The use of pepper spray on passive or non violent persons by police, is a violation of our 4th amendment rights. Steven D, in a non rec list diary on Wednesday deserves the credit here, but in light of the more recent events at UC Davis on Friday, it may be that Steven D was prescient.

Non-violent protesters do not surrender their Fourth Amendment Rights to be free from excessive force by police. Specifically, non-violent protesters may sue police and the municipality of county that employs them under this Federal law, 42 United States Code Section 1983 if they have been pepper sprayed while peacefully protesting, whether or not the protesters were arrested.

Title 42 Chapter 21, subchapter 1 Section 1983 can be found here. The protesters that were pepper sprayed at UC Davis need to consult an attorney.

At about 6:30pm EST Occupy UC Davis facebook page reported:

Protesters will be engaging civil rights attorneys to pursue legal action against the University and City of Davis for excessive force and for violating their civil and constitutional rights. The Women that were pepper sprayed at OWS a few weeks ago by Sgt Pepper Spray should also consult an attorney.

If there was ever any doubt in anyones mind about maintaining a non violent policy, let me make it totally clear that by by staying non violent the protesters at UC Davis are protected by the 4th Amendment. Clearly if law suits are filed, Lt John Pike and the other Officers who pepper sprayed the protesters (in their open mouths !) may be found liable for significant awards in court. It may be that any UC Davis official who ordered or authorized this activity may also face liability.

The 1% cannot steal our futures by pepper spraying us, they cannot have the Boston Police throw a 74 year old Korean War Veteran to the ground, and not expect that same man to get out of jail and return the next day, only to continue protesting.

The 1% cannot send our jobs overseas and expect us to say... Oh darn...OK. The 1% cannot send the Police into Occupy Oakland, shoot Scot Olsen in the head with a tear gas round, and not expect us to be back the next day.

1 percenter Mayor Michael Bloomberg cannot evict Occupy Wall St from Zuccotti Park and not expect us to come back 32,000 strong. Does Lt John Pike understand that Occupy UC Davis meets this Sunday at 3pm, that the very students he deprived of their 4th amendment rights....... are not going anywhere?

Do you, the one percenters understand that for every depraved action, for every brutality, for every act of economic oppression, for every violation of our constitutional rights.....

We are not going anywhere.

1%'ers, you have stolen our homes, sent our jobs overseas, your money has corrupted our politics, and you still ask us to share the sacrifice. We have nothing left but our souls, we have nothing left to be stolen, you have stolen our future.

You are thieves, you are plutocracy, you are corrupt, have you forgotten:

We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us

The Supreme Court held that excessive force claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's “objective reasonableness” standard. http://www.aele.org/zigmund2004.html

11 Comments

11 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Vooter (441) 13 years ago

Well said...

[-] 2 points by 1SiriusMagus (311) from Minneapolis, MN 13 years ago

This post by Hector Trevino · Executive director at CCMRICHMOND.ORG found on www.kcra.com "What that cop did was torture,We all need to flood Gov. Jerry Browns office (916) 445-2841 and demand that he remove UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi,(53 0) 752-2065 UC Police Chief Annette M. Spicuzza (530) 752-8943 and the firing of UC Davis Police Lt. John Pike." I urge everyone to pas this on.

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 13 years ago

Here is his old information from this morning. I'm sure he's moved by now. http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2345843

[-] 1 points by Justice99 (1) 13 years ago

Whether the UC Davis police would be liable under sec. 1983 is not as clear as some of the other contributors to this post have written. To prevail, a plaintiff must prove that a clearly established right has been violated. The use of pepper spray in this situation, while I agree a poor decision by the officers, may have been reasonable given that the students locked arms to block a public right of way and were warned that they would be sprayed, as evinced from their own shouts to one another to cover their eyes well before the officers sprayed them. In this case the officers possessed the authority to physically move the students. If they had not locked arms, the violation would be easier to establish. But the officers in this case could argue that the use of the spray enabled them to remove the students in a less harmful manner than the alternatives. Colleges and universities should be be centers of learning about civic life and havens of free speech. This includes inculcating civic responsibility. We not only have a civic obligation to participate (including speaking out) but an obligation to comply with otherwise legitimate laws (I don't think that prohibiting people from obstructing public walks and drives is unreasonable) and to not interfere with the use of public spaces by others.

[-] 1 points by CaliforniaTeacher (1) 13 years ago

Lt. John Pike belongs in prison. I know most police officers didn't finish High School, but don't they want their children to be able to go to college without being attacked with pepper spray and batons?

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 13 years ago

Lt John Pike has a Bach of Science.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 13 years ago

How is this a violation of the 4th Amendment? You obviously don't even know what it is. The 4th protects against illegal search and seizure. Now the Patriot Act, that violates the 4th.

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 13 years ago

Dont like to read citations? Want to ignore SCOTUS rulings, whatever....

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 13 years ago

You're joking right? Sue for what? No blood, no foul...

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 13 years ago

Case law is quite clear. This is a Civil rights violation.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 13 years ago

Haha... review precedent; you got nothing. And who you gonna sue anyway? AdBusters? He's not a cop.