NewsMine — security — civil-rights — police-swabbed-eyes-with-pepper-spray — Viewing Item

Humbolt activists awarded 1 dollar each by jury Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/11516397.htm http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/11516397.htm Posted on Fri, Apr. 29, 2005 Pepper-sprayed Humboldt activists awarded $1 each by jury JUSTIN M. NORTON Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO - Eight nonviolent logging protesters who had pepper spray swabbed in their eyes by law enforcement officers in 1997 won their case on their try but were awarded only $1 apiece. After earlier trials ended in deadlocked juries in 1998 and 2004, a jury ruled Thursday that Humboldt County and Eureka law enforcement officers used excessive force at the protest. The plaintiffs laughed and hugged in the courthouse hallways after the verdicts were read and applauded when jurors left their chambers. "They did the right thing," said plaintiff Terri "Compost" Slanetz, a 42-year-old naturalist from Oakland. "We've been trying all along to get a statement that this was illegal. It's a positive step toward people treating each other decently." The protesters claim their civil rights were violated when Humboldt County sheriff's deputies and Eureka police officers swabbed pepper spray directly in their eyes during the 1997 protest. The protesters argued the pepper spray was used to illegally punish and intimidate them for chaining themselves together and making it difficult for authorities to arrest them. Attorneys said the verdict would prevent the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protesters, the motive for sticking with the case when it seemed futile. "The plaintiffs were never in it for the money they were in it for the principle," attorney Tony Serra said. "And we won this on principle. This will deter the use of pepper spray on protesters." Plaintiffs attorney Dennis Cunningham said he thought the decision, which came after a roughly two-week trial, was tough for the jurors but called the verdict "a step forward." "One is forced to a conclusion that this is a compromise," he said. "It's an imperfect verdict in an imperfect world." The defendants in the case were Humboldt County, the city of Eureka, retired county Sheriff Dennis Lewis and current Sheriff Gary Philp, who was chief deputy sheriff at the time of the protest. "It's nice to have someone come in with some kind of resolution of the case," Philp said. "The nominal damages show that the jury thought no one got hurt." Despite the low damage amount, one of the plaintiffs said she was still pleased with the precedent. "I don't even care about the money," said Maya Portugal, 23, who now lives in Northern Ireland and works in a coffee shop. "This is a victory for us. If this is going to stop them from doing this to nonviolent people then it was worth it." Portugal was just 16 when she was swabbed with the pepper spray. Police have said they swabbed the protesters to get them to unlock their shackles so they could be removed from private property. The protests took place in the fall of 1997, one at then-Rep. Frank Riggs' Eureka office, and another at the Scotia headquarters of the Pacific Lumber Co. Juror Athene Aquino, a 35-year-old Citibank employee, said she was convinced the force was excessive by watching a video showing the deputies swapping pepper spray in the protesters' eyes. When she viewed the tape, Aquino said she "started crying. It was just very emotional."

California logging protesters win lawsuit { April 29 2005 } Humbolt activists awarded 1 dollar each by jury Sheriff swabbed eyes of non violent protesters { September 8 2004 } Swab eyes [jpg] Files Listed: 4

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.