Keene City Council Drinking Game

[Highline]

Again, I believe Ian and Sam were in the right, but you apparently still have much more faith in the judiciary than I do.

You know...  generally I would be exactly where you are regarding this issue.  The reason why I have some faith in the judiciary in this particular case is because of what it can be shown to be:  a peaceful, lawful, pre-planned protest which ultimately was nothing more than symbolic speech used to mock the Keene City Council.  A quiet mockery of the City Council which doesn't interrupt the meeting is not in any way disorderly conduct.  The 1st Amendment is all about bitching, mocking, and expressing displeasure with a government policy.

I think that a great deal of city bureaucrats/officials will be subjected to cross-examination over these cases and I think the questions asked of them will reveal precisely what they did.  As disgusting as I think the judicial system is in this state and country, I think the judicial system will protect Ian and Sam. 

Hell, I could be proven wrong...  and when I am, I will have to concede to your better judgment about this thing!

The other thing is, we act like it'll go to court, but I'm guessing they'll make sure it doesn't.  If it does, it'll be worth publicizing regardless of which way it goes.

Very good point, they very well may do that.

I tend to think they will not because they've already filed motions to upgrade the charges from class B misdemeanors to class A's.  NH changed the law a few years ago that if a misdemeanor is unspecified by statue that in order for the state to bring it as a class A (unless it involved violence or some other things) the prosecutor needs to file a specific document with the court.

They could very well be doing it as a way of puffing out their chest and hoping that Ian and Sam will be so nervous of a potential year in jail that they will back down and take a plea.  If this is what they're thinking they're obviously slow learners.

Notwithstanding anything done on the prosecution side of this case, Ian and Sam still have (in my opinion and in the opinion of two attorney's I've discussed it with) excellent footing for a 42 USC 1983 action for deprivation of rights under color of law.

[SethCohn]

Well, I think legally Sam and Ian were in the right.  Seth doesn't.  Seth argues that the state did the right thing by causing a confrontation and kicking them out of a public meeting after they were unable to figure out (within the constraints of the Constitution) that they did something unlawful.

Just to be clear:

No, I argued (repeatedly, and consistently, and I really am NOT sure why you continue to misrepresent my position/views):

When Sam began speaking back, that was when he caused a commotion.  His silent drinking of water was a protest.  His first response might be have been ok, but once he was told by the Mayor that the public was not allowed to speak, his continued speaking was the 'disruption'.  It's on video, and I cringed when I saw it.  Sam (and Ian, as I recall right now, without looking back over the video)'s search refusal is a secondary issue, since once they created a disruption, they fell into the 'reasonable exception' clause of the right to attend the meeting, and once there, all bets are off...
 
I think Monica has a clear case to win, however, if she was lumped in with them, and I don't know (nor does the video show) the circumstances with her.  I'm WAY more curious how they dealt with her than Ian or Sam.

As usual, IANAL.  But I think the video is quite damaging to the the claim that Sam and Ian were peacefully protesting and just had their right to attend stripped from them due to refusal to be searched.  But that's my view, and I certainly would _welcome_ a legal decision that proves me wrong, and I fear one that proves me correct because it could make it much harder for everyone in the future.

[Highline]

Well, I think legally Sam and Ian were in the right.  Seth doesn't.  Seth argues that the state did the right thing by causing a confrontation and kicking them out of a public meeting after they were unable to figure out (within the constraints of the Constitution) that they did something unlawful.

When Sam began speaking back, that was when he caused a commotion. 

You yourself said that if Ian and Sam had allowed the police to search that they would have been allowed to remain.

As usual, IANAL. 

Just because you're wrong about this doesn't mean you have to keep calling yourself anal

[SethCohn]

You yourself said that if Ian and Sam had allowed the police to search that they would have been allowed to remain.

Heika showed she was drinking water, and was generally cooperative.  She was explicitly allowed to stay.  I'd argue that she was allowed to stay because she was being cooperative, not _directly_ because she allowed them to examine her bottle, though that was a component of her cooperation.  The cop _defends_ her because of this cooperation she shows: she wants to assure them she's not want to disrupt things.  Meanwhile Ian and Sam argue and Sam wanders off to film and berate the Mayor and Manager.

If Ian and Sam had allowed a search but stayed unruly otherwise, _perhaps_ they might have been allowed to stay, perhaps not to due to otherwise lack of cooperation and not sitting quietly for the meeting to continue.  We won't know now, will we?  As I said, I think Monica's got the case here... if she was otherwise quiet, and merely refused to be searched.  Likely, they'll claim she was 'part of the group' and so Sam/Ian's behavior takes them all out.  Next time, be individuals, sit apart from each other... don't let them lump you together so one bad apple can take you all out (this applies to lots of situations, not just this one)

[assawyer]

You yourself said that if Ian and Sam had allowed the police to search that they would have been allowed to remain.

Heika showed she was drinking water, and was generally cooperative.  She was explicitly allowed to stay.  I'd argue that she was allowed to stay because she was being cooperative, not _directly_ because she allowed them to examine her bottle, though that was a component of her cooperation.  The cop _defends_ her because of this cooperation she shows: she wants to assure them she's not want to disrupt things.  Meanwhile Ian and Sam argue and Sam wanders off to film and berate the Mayor and Manager.

If Ian and Sam had allowed a search but stayed unruly otherwise, _perhaps_ they might have been allowed to stay, perhaps not to due to otherwise lack of cooperation and not sitting quietly for the meeting to continue.  We won't know now, will we?  As I said, I think Monica's got the case here... if she was otherwise quiet, and merely refused to be searched.  Likely, they'll claim she was 'part of the group' and so Sam/Ian's behavior takes them all out.  Next time, be individuals, sit apart from each other... don't let them lump you together so one bad apple can take you all out (this applies to lots of situations, not just this one)

Seth, let me see if I understand you correctly. Do you think:
*Ian and Sam were disruptive because they inquired from the Mayor who he was referring to drinking/having alcohol/containers etc
*Ian and Sam weren't being disruptive because they drank from their containers
*Because Ian and Sam didn't give up their rights regarding a search they were further being disruptive so they had to leave
*Heika was cooperative because in part she gave up her right against a search, and as such she was allowed to stay
*People who disagree/question government officials are inherently disruptive

Is that a fair summary of your position? Do you think that people who make information requests of the chair are disruptive? Or are they only disruptive if they are also mocking the government body that is having the meeting?

[SethCohn]

Last time I go over this, I know I've said this multiple times before.

Seth, let me see if I understand you correctly. Do you think:
*Ian and Sam were disruptive because they inquired from the Mayor who he was referring to drinking/having alcohol/containers etc

They were being disruptive by continuing to talk after being asked not to the first time.
Doesn't matter what they were asking or 'inquring', they were told it was not allowed at the meeting.
So yes, they were disruptive due to that.

*Ian and Sam weren't being disruptive because they drank from their containers

Since the camera(s) fail to show the actual drinking game happening, I can't answer that.  _Something_ was happening off camera, since the Mayor reacts to it, as to other councilors.

*Because Ian and Sam didn't give up their rights regarding a search they were further being disruptive so they had to leave

Poorly worded, so I can't answer that yes or no.  Rewritten:
Ian and Sam refused to cooperate, in fact Sam got up and harrassed the Mayor and Manager verbally, and as part of that behavior, both invoked their right to refuse to be searched.  Because they were uncooperative, and had been disruptive already, they were asked to leave.

*Heika was cooperative because in part she gave up her right against a search, and as such she was allowed to stay

Yes, I think that's clear.  But making the jump from 'because she gave up her right' to 'because they didn't' is the issue here:  if they were already in the 'zone' for being tossed out, they weren't tossed _because_ of the failure to be searched, but for the failure to stop being disruptive.  Heika is clearly not being disruptive when she cooperates.

*People who disagree/question government officials are inherently disruptive

False.

Is that a fair summary of your position?

No, since I've had to rewrite most of them, and disagree with a few.

Do you think that people who make information requests of the chair are disruptive? Or are they only disruptive if they are also mocking the government body that is having the meeting?

Speaking out of turn at a meeting is disruptive.  Mocking is disruptive.
This goes back to the entire 'decorum' discussion.

I'm done rehashing this.