With close to 300 protestors arrested so far during the Republican National Convention, the volunteer attorneys have had their work cut out for them representing people at their arraignments (where arrestees plead "guilty" or "not guilty" to the charges against them). For two days, attorneys from the Public Defender’s office, volunteers with the ACLU of Minnesota and attorneys from the have been on hand to make sure that every arrestee has the benefit of an attorney for their arraignment.
The overall atmosphere at the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center is almost surreal. The building’s normal security has been amped up to the point that the entire facility is surrounded by 8- or 9-foot-high chain-link fencing. The perimeter is patrolled by the National Guard, (I'm guessing, I didn't ask), and you have to pass through a security checkpoint to get within the fenced-in perimeter. Attorneys with their driver’s license and attorney license are allowed to enter with their briefcase but no cell phone. Everybody else must present their ID and they are not allowed to have any bags or other property. Once inside the perimeter, you walk down a fenced corridor to the main doors where you are greeted with another checkpoint where you again show your IDs and have your bag and shoes run through an X-ray machine. As I walked the fenced corridor for the first time, I though how ironic it was that this center routinely houses people who are accused of murder and other horrible violent crimes, all without these massive security precautions.
And what about all those arrests? The numbers so far show that as of Thursday afternoon, about 300 people have been arrested in St. Paul and about 100 in Minneapolis. All but a handful of the Minneapolis arrestees were cited and released immediately.
St. Paul is a different story. Some people were cited with misdemeanors, processed and released within a few hours; but the vast majority of people were charged with "gross misdemeanors" or felonies. They were held up until their 36 hours expired. (Minnesota law requires individuals in custody to be charged and brought before a judge or released after 36 hours, not including the day of arrest, weekends and holidays.)
Wednesday was a big day in arraignment court because, for most of the arrestees, their 36 hours was up at noon. , 71 people were arrested on felony charges. Twenty-seven of them were dismissed outright. We have been told that all but around 25 of the rest have already been reduced to lesser charges. Our volunteer attorneys were surprised by the high bail amounts they saw on Tuesday, and Wednesday was more of the same.
On Tuesday one of our attorneys told the judge for the record that in his 30 years of practicing criminal law, he has never seen $2,000 bail for charges of disorderly conduct. By Wednesday evening when the calendar turned to the last 50 or so misdemeanor arraignments, bail amounts were down in the $200 to $500 range for out-of-state defendants and no bail for in-state residents. Our attorneys heard stories from many people, including journalists, who reported being swept up by police without regard to their actions. One person reported that he worked for a security company and he was on his way to report to his assignment — at the convention — when police arrested him along with others. Complicating matters for those who have been released is the seizure and holding of their property. We have been getting calls all day from people who are in a jam because their car keys, backpacks, purses, wallets, credit cards, IDs and cell phones were taken by police. They are not able to drive their vehicles home because they don’t have their keys and they can’t get a place to stay without access to their money.
Outside the Law Enforcement Center on Wednesday evening, the atmosphere was a mix of joy and apprehension. Family members and friends came to await the release of their loved ones and friends. Clusters of people gathered on the sidewalks and boulevards to reunite with people being released. A guitarist played mellow music to one small group of people and the assembled group was peaceful. Across the street, a group of police on horseback watched the sidewalk in anticipation. Another group of police in riot gear was assembled nearby the mounted patrol. On the other side, at least one more group of police in riot gear also kept a watchful eye on the peaceful crowd. By the time I left the LEC when court was winding down, all but one group of police in riot gear had left the area.
The ACLU of Minnesota will continue to provide attorneys for the arraignments of people taken into custody in RNC-related arrests and we will be reviewing police actions and arrests for possible civil rights litigation to vindicate the constitutional rights of protestors and journalists.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.