Earlier this week, the Southern California ACLU filed a lawsuit to stop the city of Los Angeles from imposing a curfew. On Thursday, the Northern California ACLU sent a letter to the mayor and city council of Sacramento, requesting that they “rescind or substantially restrict the Curfew Order proclaimed on June 1, 2020.”
Letters also went to the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Napa as well as the cities of Palo Alto and San Francisco, demanding that they immediately rescind or substantially restrict the curfew orders that they imposed over the last three days.
“Their lawful efforts to stop excessive force by law enforcement have been met, at times, with excessive force and now a curfew that improperly curtails their constitutional rights,” said Shilpi Agarwal, a senior attorney at the ACLU of Northern California Foundation.
Agarwal adds, “If anything, the imposition of a curfew, a signature measure of a police state, in direct response to protests regarding police accountability, demonstrates the importance of these protests.”
The letter notes: “The Order in its present form imposes a sweeping general ban on the public assembly, free expression in all public forums, and movement of nearly all 513,000 residents from 8pm to 5am and is neither authorized by state statutory law nor consistent with the freedoms guaranteed by the United States and California Constitutions—including the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, assembly, press and movement, and the most basic notice requirements.”
The police killings of Black people like Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, and recently George Floyd have led many community members to both collectively and individually express opposition “to the systemic use of unreasonable and unnecessary police violence against Black people and have called for police accountability.”
The letter notes that the ACLU-NC “equally condemns and has long advocated against police brutality, racial profiling, and selective enforcement of laws against Black people that results in the 
disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on Black lives.”
Public demonstrations and protesters, however, “constitute an exercise of rights squarely protected by the First Amendment.”
They write: “Their lawful efforts to stop excessive force by law enforcement have been met, at times, with excessive force and now a curfew that improperly curtails their constitutional rights.”
Further, “the curfew noticeably has no exception for some of its most vulnerable community members – unhoused and unsheltered residents. This Order effectively leaves Black people – who comprise a large percentage of unhoused people in Sacramento County – with an even higher likelihood of hostile interactions with police and now the national guard.”
The ACLU argues that if anything the imposition of a curfew—a significant measure of a police state—in response to protests regarding police accountability demonstrates the importance of these protests.
For the ACLU, the order exceeds the state authority since it extends far beyond any emergency it seeks to address.
“The Order specifically states that ‘a majority of the protesters’ continue to act lawfully,” they write and note that “the Order does not state any areas where they may have been looting or vandalism specific to the protests occurred. However, if any looting or vandalism did occur, it occurred in downtown and midtown and potentially one or two isolated regions. Nonetheless, the Order applies throughout the entirety of the City of Sacramento’s 100 square miles, and to nearly all of its 513,000 residents.”
Further, they argue that the order prohibits the speech and assembly for a significant portion of each day it remains in effect.
Indeed they argue that now, more than ever, the “principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”
They add, “The Order is not narrowly tailored to the City’s purported concerns such as alleged illegal conduct or geographic areas where property damage or violence is imminently likely to occur.”
The ACLU also notes that this disproportionately impacts unhoused people. James Lee “Faygo” Clark will be directly impacted by the fact that unhoused people are subject to the Order.
He stated, “Once again the City of Sacramento is showing a lack of understanding and consideration concerning local events in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd. Yet again, the City has opted to put the value of property above the value of human lives and dignity.”
Clark added, “This curfew serves not only is an example of the willingness to use force to against those protesting violence against themselves, but also shows the negligence in which the City is dealing with the unhoused situation.”
The ACLU adds, “Government officials have at their disposal more narrowly tailored law enforcement measures to deal with violent acts – without resorting to trampling everyone’s civil liberties. In response to our demand letter, San Francisco has announced that it will lift its curfew tomorrow.
“We’ve already seen far too many times to recount how over-policing leads to the very kinds of tragic circumstances that are now being protested.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Politicians and the ACLU telling us that people have the right to gather to protest while at the same time people are still being told they don’t have the right to gather in a church or at their son’s little league game comes across as so hypocritical.
I guess a virus doesn’t spread at protests.
No, and now there are articles about health care workers who are showing up at protests because ‘it is SO important’. I have no problem with people protesting – this needs to be done – but it doesn’t have to be done in the traditional manner of gathering in crowds too close together (in virus times). Remember when there were protests a few weeks ago about the SO important issues of ______, and the left-issue protestors were showing off how they were protesting safely and responsibly by being in a cars? That was responsible. That has apparently gone out the window, and now even some health care workers are willing to gather in crowds because the issue is more important than minimizing the risk of spreading the virus. One of these workers was even asked about the hypocrisy because right-wing protestors had been criticized for standing too close together, and their answer was that this was a much more important issue. O—–K.
“I guess a virus doesn’t spread at protests.”
It does and it’s going to be a big problem. Already reports are cases going way up.
OK, what kind of comment is THAT?!? There is no possible way there is going to be a spike for at least 3-4 weeks, more likely 5-6 weeks with data lag. People are reporting “cases are going way up” ??? The CV-19 doesn’t even show up on tests that fast. What, exactly, are you referring to?
Significant case increases already.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html
OK, perhaps if you meant “there is already an increasing rate of infection, even without the protests” I understand. I read what you said as, “the protests are already causing an increase”.
Yes… levels of significance…
US population: ~ 330,000,000
CA population: ~ 40,000,000
Yes, this is significant…
And a cause for reasonable panic… particularly given the trend lines…
Sidebar, off topic (admittedly)… with ‘significantly’ over 10% of the population, CA folk are not represented in Congress or the Electoral college at that level… we are the ‘cash cows’… we pay more in Federal taxes (per capita) than almost all other states… and receive (per capita) far less… AND Republicans believe, we should be limited in SALT offsets… (gotta’ pay those taxes, to fund Iowa, Montana and other ‘red’ states)… we are higher middle income, and could not deduct (@ 15%) all our State/Local taxes…
And our State legislature, thinking they’ll get 14 billion from the Republican Senate, and/or the Prez, who finds CA as a ‘blue state’, must be puffing on a recently-made-legal substance…
Not likely to happen…
Great irony Keith, if only it all wasn’t so deadly serious.
Actually, Keith brings up a point.
Is the ACLU (also) involved with any legal action to challenge the “stay-at-home” orders? And if not, why not (given their mission)?
Keith
It seems there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Yes, I believe the protests should have been organized in a socially distanced manner. However, I cannot overlook the hypocrisy of those who were just recently stating that the viral threat was overblown and we should be opening up the economy as fast as possible now criticizing those for whom Black Lives Matter and the particular case of George Floyd are more critical than the economic opening. Why would we honor financial concerns over concerns of social justice?
Maybe we would all benefit from taking a really long, hard look at our own priorities and statements as well as those with whom we do not agree.
True, as written… may BLM (not Bureau of Land Management) realize the same thing… where a member of that group bushwhacked a local radio/TV personality into saying “All lives matter”… apparently an affront to ‘blacks’, and he got summarily fired due to ‘blow-back’…
Am wondering, if to believe in BLM, Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, White, Native American, Semitic, etc. lives don’t matter… racism (and ethnic/religious), and bad (criminal) policing, are not OK if blacks suffer, but OK if other racial/ethnic/religious groups suffer that? Do we have to elaborate every group to stop the violence/evil actions done by some members of the police or other authorities? Apparently we are not PC, or are racist if we were to say, “All Lives Matter”… folk have been ostracized/dismissed for that!
Knowing I’ll be falsely branded as an insensitive, bigoted, racist, and not worthy of taking another breath, I’ll spit it out… “All Lives Matter”… and until we make sure that the institutions/authorities respect that, and stop the things that have happened under ‘color of authority’, in MN, MI, NY, on Native American (the Navajo nation in AZ have suffered more, by %-age, than ‘black america’ re: covid.), non-heterosexuals, and/or in the past (some current), Jews, Catholics, Moslems, seems like only ‘some’ lives should matter to some… we need to weed out the abuses, irrespective of who suffers them… IMHO.
And we need to stop being divisive to rooting out those ills, and playing word games with ‘labels’… Black lives matter… Hispanic/Latinx lives matter… Asian lives matter… Native American lives matter… ‘white’ lives matter (well, apparently that’s a sticking point for many)… Jewish lives matter… Moslem lives matter… gay, lesbian, +++ lives matter… etc.
Or, I could summarize, and say “All Lives Matter”… but that appears to be anathema/heresy to many… whatever… BTW, one of the ‘active’ officers being active participation in the George Floyd murder has an Asian name…
[My bad.. i called it murder, the VG owner has called it “an incident”]
I believe the curfew is in ‘direct response’ to the looting, not to the peaceful protests. I might be persuaded to agree that the curfew terms were excessive — but when statements like the above are made, you aren’t winning my support.
I think the key is protest versus looting/ rioting and does a curfew target the wrong end of that… This is not like the riots in the 1960s or Rodney King. Those weren’t protests, they were riots. These are protests most of them where some people either outside agitators or others get out of control. So the way to stop a riot might not work with these.
Legitimate question. But as stated the ACLU is implying the curfew is a response to the protests. A more legit approach is acknowledge the looting, and say the curfew is an excessive response. For example:
Is a legitimate argument.
Is not a truthful statement. IF? Srsly?
Did you change your comment? Cuz I swear I was responding to a different comment!
They have to focus on protecting the legal behavior – the letter isn’t attempting to protect looters. They do address the looting but argue that the order is overly broad and not limited to areas of problem: “The Order specifically states that ‘a majority of the protesters’ continue to act lawfully,” they write and note that “the Order does not state any areas where they may have been looting or vandalism specific to the protests occurred. However, if any looting or vandalism did occur, it occurred in downtown and midtown and potentially one or two isolated regions. Nonetheless, the Order applies throughout the entirety of the City of Sacramento’s 100 square miles, and to nearly all of its 513,000 residents.”
Alan,
While the intent may have been “a direct response” to looting, the reality has not born this out. There have been multiple timed closures of completely peaceful events demonstrating clearly that “looting” is not the only target of curfews. There have also been instances in which the police have made exit difficult, if not impossible for protestors, and then used excessive force to clear people who have no clear route of exit. This is a common police tactic I have witnessed in person going back as far as 1968,
I don’t have argument with any of that.
What do you believe is the “target”?
The Target store……:)
Pretty funny, Keith. 😉
For what it’s worth, I believe that taking steps to ensure public safety (including the safety of participants) is also a “target”. (In addition to protecting property.)
I still haven’t seen anyone respond to my question, regarding the reason that the ACLU isn’t (also) challenging the “stay-at-home” orders (given their mission).
But, I would be interested to know if anyone actually believes that the “target” is something more nefarious, and what that might be.
Fair question. I do not believe there is a one size fits all response. The tone seems to be set by the police chiefs and city leadership on a case by case basis. We can see this in our own region. In Davis, on Saturday, the police accompanied the protestors along an agreed-upon route and no confrontation occurred. On Sunday there was a brief, but nonviolent confrontation when police prevented marchers from entering the freeway.
Compare this with Sacramento where there was property destruction to within 1/2 mile of my son’s home in Midtown. He is sheltered but was streaming the news as the clash occurred.
These are two extremes of behavior and doubtless required different responses. Unfortunately, some city leaderships are more prone to see any protestors as “the enemy” than are others, doubtless leading to different “targeting” and outcomes.
While the intent may have been “a direct response” to Covid-19, the reality has not borne this out. There have been multiple closures of completely/reasonably safe events demonstrating clearly that “spread of Covid” is not a fully legitimate target of ‘stay at home’, masking, social distancing ORDERS… (CDC has recommended social distancing, OR masking… others have changed that to AND, made it mandatory to do both… and them some). There have also been instances in which the authorities have made travel, entrance to business, operation of business, places of worship difficult, if not impossible for folk, and then used sanctions to control people. This is a common governmental/populist tactic I have witnessed in person.
We have two ‘viruses’ going on just now… many will die, be injured (physically or economically, maybe both), or at least inconvenienced, or feel their constitutional rights have been violated. I see the curfews a similar to ‘stay at home orders’… a short term reaction to an emergent, perceived ‘threat’… regardless of the validity of the threat, either both responses are logical, or neither.
I agree with this . . . what is important is where this goes next. Anger can be expressed creatively, powerfully and nonviolently . . . or it can be expressed violently. The anger is real and is understandable – even the violence is ‘understandable’ – though destructive.
We really are back to a modern version of the ideologies of ML King vs. Malcolm X. Which is more powerful, which is more effective – violence or non-violence, when demanding change for the oppressed? From an article in Aljazeera:
I really can’t argue with those last three sentences from the point of view of those who are descendents of American slaves. As I said, the anger is understandable. But does anyone believe change is going to come about from photos & vids on TV showing young black, hispanic and white people running out of a burning Target with bags of stuff?
I think your question should be asked in a larger context.
The way I see it there is a wiring different with people in general. Some are wired emotive… their emotional processor dominates their rational self. We are all emotive creatures, but controlling our emotions so we fan function should be our life-long pursuit.
But our media and entertainment industry makes money by tweaking our emotions. And our politicians and related activist groups have figured out that they can plug into the media… especially the new social media… and tweak the emotions of millions as a call to extreme action. The Islamic extremist terrorists figured this out more than a decade ago.
What we have is national and global insanity. People running around protesting, rioting and looting because something in their news feeds lit them up in irritation and anger. And they need a release.
Somewhere close to half the nation has been drive mad… insane… lacking control of their rational facilities. Our only hope is that more than half have figured out they are being manipulated and can connect to their rational processor and make sure that the insane don’t get control of the political levers and switches of the nation. The nuts already own the state.
You mean a murder by a police officer?
Blue Diamond is a powerful force in this Valley.
Yes. Do you need a list of other incidences that could have been plastered all over the media to create a sea of rage? I can provide it, just ask.
It isn’t good at all, but there are hundreds of other not-good stories that could have been made the news narrative. In fact, there are several of them done by the rioters. Interesting that CNN and Twitter are not lit up with those stories.
Exactly Jeff, can you imagine the outrage if conservative protesters were caught on camera beating a black female store owner with a 2×4?
What about the 300 incidents where police have beaten protesters in the last week?
Or the retired black community officer that was shot and filmed bleeding out until he died and put on Facebook.
You know the Vanguard would have those images and stories about them plastered all over this blog.
JB, KO, DG,
What is the purpose of your one-sided thinking? The enemy is one sided thinking. You all go “oh, but what about _____” (said in a mocking child tone-of-voice), but fail to listen to each other, and are sure your argument is bigger than the other sides, so you keep arguing, as if the more words the better, or last person to make an argument wins.
Left, right — you all are the problem.
and AM
Ron
“I still haven’t seen anyone respond to my question, regarding the reason that the ACLU isn’t (also) challenging the “stay-at-home” orders (given their mission).”
I would like to take on that point from a Health in All Policy Perspective”. Americans typically see health as an individual matter and as such do not give much consideration to the health of others. This is a far from universal point of view. In many Asian cultures, it is a common practice, for example, to wear a mask for the protection of others when one has as much as a mild cold, or when one knows they will be in an enclosed space such as public transport.
So it comes as a bit of a shock to Americans when we are directed to stay indoors for the protection of both ourselves and others. When we are asked to socially distance and use face coverings not only for our own safety, which we may be willing to risk but for the sake of others. Unlike how some have liked to characterize staying in, or face covering as an act of cowardice, I see it as an act of compassion and caring for others. An act of social contribution, which Americans also do not seem to value as highly as some other societies.
With this as the backdrop, a stay at home order issued by public health officers is a very different act from a stay at home order issued to quell free speech, dissent or destruction of property. Its essence is the protection of the entire population, not just a preferred group, for instance, those fortunate enough to own businesses or those in political power.
Thanks for your response, as well as your other response.
This is related to my earlier question, regarding “target”. I’m not seeing any evidence that the purpose of the curfew is to “quell free speech” or “dissent”.
I’m not sure if protection of property is a “legitimate” issue (in terms of curtailing liberties) in the eyes of the ACLU. Regardless, I would think that ensuring public safety could be a legitimate issue (in regard to both the curfew and the stay-at-home orders).
Which prompted me to ask why their action regarding one order, but apparently not the other.
“With this as the backdrop, a stay at home order issued by public health officers is a very different act from a stay at home order issued to quell free speech, dissent or destruction of property. Its essence is the protection of the entire population, not just a preferred group, for instance, those fortunate enough to own businesses or those in political power.”
Comes down to several factors – (1) the legitimacy of the public safety risk, (2) risk to the population, (3) whether the fix actually addresses the issue, (4) there is a more specific difference between the right to leave your home versus the right to free speech.
I would say that people feeling the right to leave your home and/or reopen their businesses is equated with free speech.
I think at this point the reopen the economy supporters should just laugh in the face of politicians who are still trying to tell them they still have to shelter in place and obey their shutdown rules after what we all saw take place the last two weeks.
Some people, the last polling I saw earlier this week showed that most are supportive of continuing the stay at home. And as I go around town, places are mostly empty.
Or, KO, the principles the US constitution was formed upon… Declaration of Independence. Some are, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
Read it all for context… life and liberty was also espoused in the Constitution (and subsequent amendments)… yet, reality and history shows those principles, have been belied, in practice… you seem to advocate for little/no restrictions on “the pursuit of happiness”… but life, and liberty, were also ‘cornerstones’… or three legs of a stable dream/vision… a ‘plane’ is defined by three points… a one-legged stool (or ‘vision’) is not “stable”… simple math, simple physics…
The social construct we need has all three legs… George Floyd had two legs (and breath) cut from under him… he wasn’t a complete “innocent”, but the death penalty was exacted by those not charged with, nor qualified for, being prosecutor, judge, jury, nor executioners… a crime most foul, as Shakespeare might have opined…
I hope and pray that the police unions “back off”, those charged freely admit their guilt, and plead for mercy (including, but necessarily limited to, loss of all pension PR benefits, and serious prison time in the “gen pop”… if not, “que les mauvais moments roulent sur” … semi-opposite of ‘let the goodtimes roll on’… think French revolution… et Marie Antoinette quipping “laissez-les manger du gâteau”… she and her husband came to a bad end… hope that doesn’t come true in the US, in 2020… lack of leadership at highest national levels… hope it doesn’t result in institution of the guillotine for those “in responsible charge”… tres sangnant… but the public just might love it!
Another commenter noted (just yesterday) that destruction of property can easily lead to violence between individuals/groups, as well.
As well as an aggressive police response, and an out-of-control situation.
We’re seeing examples of that, on the news.
The problem is – if you don’t police constitutionally you lose your legitimate authority and it makes the problem worse. We’re seeing example of that right now.
That would be the basis of the protests in the first place.
But, it’s a different issue than establishing a curfew (which “ironically”) is the responsibility of the police to enforce.
Overall, it seems like a good time to stay home, if possible. Perhaps it’s fortunate that many folks were already doing so, due to the coronavirus.
Maybe it’s calming down, now.
It’s a feedback loop. The protests happen, the police overreact, the protests continue.
And, the violence and destruction continues.
I guess it’s too early to tell if there’s going to be any substantive changes as a result of this, as well as what the impact of those changes might be.
My mistake… thought it was a reaction to really dangerous air quality in many Asian cities (protecting themselves)… guess my Asian friends lied to me, and said it was that, not respect for others… you have ‘corrected’ me… thanks…
Guess the fact that the air is demonstrably cleaner in China, India, elsewhere in Asia (compared to a few months ago), is due to sensitive, public purposed, individual use of masks… one learns…
Here’s another question:
If the police didn’t “overreact” (at this point), would some still attend with the intent to cause damage and violence?
In other words – is the damage, theft and violence primarily a response to what occurred earlier (or perhaps other reasons, as well), and less due to any continued police response?
I suspect that the answer is “yes”.
And, in that case, does it make any sense to just let that occur? Is that helpful in any way, shape, or form?
I’ll go ahead and answer my own question.
No. And, it’s a reason that curfews exist in these situations. To protect all (including participants in protests).
Especially since most of the problems occur during late evenings/nights, after many of the more peaceful protesters have already gone home.
It truly seems like a “no-brainer”, to me. How is this even “controversial”, in these situations?
Unless you are protesting a cause that liberals agree with stay at home is good for all of the rest of you so you don’t spread COVID.