First Trial for Political Songs on Pacific Ave.

DRAGGING INNOCENT PEOPLE TO COURT
On the Dept. 10 Calendar today, Michele and attorney Ed Frey along with five witnesses showed up to testify that Michele wasn't present during the "subversive singing" January 6th.

Complaining citizen arrester Sean Riley, his witness Funt, Officer Shoenfeld, and City Attorney Barisone were nowhere to be seen. They had all showed up March 26 at Becky Johnson's hearing on March 26th in Department 1.

On March 25th, when Michele showed up for trial (with witnesses and attorney), the clerk informed her that she'd been tried, found guilty, and sentenced a month before on February 25th--even though Officer Shoenfield wasn't present and the court had the wrong date. Embarrassed, the clerks rescheduled Michele's trial for April 6th. Perhaps City Attorney didn't get the word; perhaps he was finally accepting our testimony that she wasn't even present when Riley's false police report was filed. Or perhaps he was saving his ammunition for the activists who regularly challenge police misconduct on Pacific Ave--on trial later.

Hopefully Michele will now sue Riley for false arrest to recover the expenses she incurred through time lost from her teaching job. And for the intimidation factor involved in chilling her from playing the recorder on the street for the last few months. Since the SCPD colluded in (and, in fact, largely instigated) the citation as evidenced by the police report of Officer Shoenfeld (soon to be posted), they and the City are also legally liable for this negligent or malicious mischief.


TRYING TO SQUEEZE STANDARDS OUT OF THE SCPD & CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
In any case, attorney Ed Frey has filed a discovery request for the "volume" standards of the SCPD in its issuance of the "Unreasonably Disturbing Noises" ordinance, used regularly to harass, drive away, and cite street performers on Pacific Avenue (MC 9.36.020). In another obstructive move, the SCPD (now open only Tuesdays and Thursdays) refused to accept a discovery subpoena, demanding $150 to receive it. The City Attorney's office refused to accept the subpoena as well.

It's unclear at this point how much City Attorney John Barisone is making from this case. Or how much it's costing the City. Of all the city employees, however, I'm informed that Barisone's salary can't be immediately determined from the Sentinel city salary website.


NEXT TARGET: BECKY JOHNSON
It seems authorities are going to a lot of trouble to harass activists challenging legally shaky SCPD procedures requiring musicians to "move along or be cited" using the cover of citizen arrests.

The next target is Becky Johnson, the second of the "sinister sidewalk singsong citations" to go to trial. In that case on March 26 Judge "Snake Oil" Symons refused to grant an adequate continuance even though attorney Frey was newly on the case. Continuances are a customary courtesy for attorneys facing simultaneous trials as Ed Frey faces around April 16, the latest date Symons insisted on for Johnson's trial date. In another unusual ruling, Symons demanded Johnson be personally present (normally infractions can be handled in the absence of the client by an attorney representing her).

Earlier Symons assumed the role of prosecutor in spite of her supposedly neutral role as judge by announcing she was subpoenaing police officers to come to court, even though that is normally the responsibility of the complaining citizen in a citizen's arrest


STANDARDS FOR TAKING A CITIZEN ARREST: TREATING STREET PERFORMERS DIFFERENTLY
Sgt. Harms has not responded to my most recent Public Records Act request regarding double standards for taking a citizen's arrest from a resident or merchant against a street performer (yes, the take those arrests and send the performer or protester to court) versus a counter-arrest by the affected performer or protester claiming that a false report is being intentionally made.

There's also no clarify as to whether a police officer can refuse to tell performers and protesters just how loud is too loud in their "professional" opinion, as was asked by the protesters of Officer Shoenfeld in this case.

Additionally what are the standards for "reasonable cause" for an officer's accepting a citizen arrest of another citizen? These need to be clarified. What is "reasonable cause", supposedly required by the SCPD's General Directive 364.4 for a Private Citizen Arrest (i.e. an arrest by a non-police officer under PC 849b1). (See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/21/18642408.php) These citations can be time-consuming, First-Amendment-chilling, and nerve-racking for performers. protester, or homeless people downtown hearded to court under the SCPD's policy of serving as de facto private security guards for merchants and residents.

In this case, there was also a sharp difference between how Officer Shoenfeld treated the request for a citizen's arrest from Sean Riley and how she treated similar requests from me and Becky Johnson. Riley with little corroboration and over the contrary testimony of five witnesses on the street was given a blank check to drag four people into court with $445 citations. When Johnson and I tried to fill out similar arrest-citations for "false police report", we were first stalled, then denied. (See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/01/20/18635743.php)


THE LATEST FROM SGT. HARMS
So far this was the most recent communications from Sgt. Harms:

RE: Clarification requested‏
From: Michael Harms (mharms [at] cityofsantacruz.com)
Sent: Mon 3/29/10 8:37 PM
To: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)

Robert, if someone is singing quietly we probably wouldn’t get a complaint in the first place. When we do get a complaint we deal with it using our best discretion at the time. Amplification devices will most likely never be acceptable. My understanding is that they are not protected by free speech either, as they are not required to conduct a peaceful assembly or “protest”. I can not debate hypothetical issues with you because there are too many variables. You can always subpoena anyone you like, including officers, and they will testify for themselves as to what they saw and heard. Aside from the noise curfew, these types of complaints are based entirely on citizen complaints. It is then their burden to prove their case in court.

Anything further I will attempt to address in person.

Best regards


UNREASONABLY DISTURBING NOISES AND REASONABLE NOTICE
Clearly there are no answers to the questions performers, protesters, and those using the public spaces are asking. "Best discretion", "singing quietly" are not standards that give any reasonable notice of what is legal for the person singing downtown.

According to an attorney who argued an "unreasonable noise" case before (now-retired) Judge Kessell in the late 70's or early 80's, the judge recognized the First Amendment problems with the law and essentially ruled that the volume had to be so loud as to be physically painful, dismissing the case of Tamorax, a drummer who's still around and still getting ticketed for drumming downtown.


RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITY ON PACIFIC AVENUE
We'll probably be conducting a "return to the sidewalk" singalong Friday afternoon around 1:30 PM in front of the bookshop santa cruz. Look for a confirming notice in the calendar.

If you want more information or want to volunteer to help, e-mail me at rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com or give me a call at 423-4833.

If the D.A.Didn't leave word they were not coming to the hearing, that shows bad faith on behalf or the witnesses and it would have shown a different side had they said they couldn't make it to Michelle's hearing.

Sounds like they have been listening to what Robert has been saying and writing and didn't even dare to show up in court. They'll probably claimed they had a mix up on the date.

So anyway.. what does that mean? Does that mean they defaulted on the case and Michele is now officially off the hook?

It's my understanding that Michele's case has been dropped.

Coming up next is Becky's case on April 16. And however many police choose to falsely cite (using citizen arrests or doing so directly) Friday afternoon in front of the Bookshop on April 9th. See at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/04/07/18644020.php .

After that Robert "Blindbear" Facer (also appealing his Sleeping Ban conviction) will be going to "sinister songster" trial on April 27 at 1:30 PM in Dept. 10.

My trial isn't scheduled yet.

See you all in front of the Bookshop today.

The proper spelling is Schonfield for the incompetent or malicious officer who orchestrated the four $445 citations. I apologize for the repeated error.