[More on the Pepper Spray Case]
San Francisco — An eight-person federal jury has returned a unanimous verdict for the Q-Tip Pepper Spray Eight activists/plaintiffs, finding the County of Humboldt and City of Eureka liable for excessive force in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The excessive force was used by Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputies and Eureka Police Officers when they applied pepper spray with Q-tips directly to the eyes of the eight nonviolent forest defense protesters in three incidents in 1997. Three of the activists were also sprayed directly in the eyes from inches away. Two of the young women were juveniles.
Former Sheriff Dennis Lewis and current Sheriff Gary Philp also were found liable for causing the use of excessive force by setting policies allowing the unprecedented use of pepper spray on the passive demonstrators, who had locked their arms together inside metal pipes.
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."
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."
The jury awarded nominal damages of only $1 to each of the plaintiffs, who made it clear all along that they weren't suing for the money, but to bring about a change of policy, to prevent the future use of pepper spray in Humboldt in the way it was used on them. They hope and expect that the verdict will reverberate far beyond rural Humboldt County to make it clear that police can not use the extremely painful pepper spray on non-violent people to coerce them to follow orders.
Lawyer Tony Serra called the verdict a "mixed metaphor." He said, "The verdict establishes now and forever that pepper spray applied in this fashion in these circumstances is excessive force. That will deter law enforcement officials throughout the country in the use of pepper spay and that's very good." But Serra said, "These young people suffered grievous mental anguish and should have been given a substantial amount of money to recompense them."
The defendants may be required to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs of the plaintiffs, which will no doubt exceed $1 million for litigating the case through three trials and multiple appeals as high as the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nancy Delaney, a lawyer for Humboldt County and other defendants, said, "We obviously have to examine what the verdict means." Delaney said the defendants will oppose requests by the plaintiffs that the county be required to pay their attorney fees. She said she believes the award of nominal damages doesn't support an award of attorney fees.
"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."
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.
The civil rights lawsuit was filed at the end of October 1997. After the first trial ended in an evenly split jury in 1998, the judge presiding over the case at the time took it upon himself to decide the case in favor of the defendants, saying no reasonable juror could find that the actions of Humboldt officers was excessive force.
After appeals overturned that ruling and granted a new trial, a new legal team took over the case for the activists. Further appeals by the new team removed the first judge for the appearance of bias. Judge Susan Illston replaced him, and a second trial in September 2004 ended in a hung jury split 6-2 in favor of the activists.
The third time was the charm, as the jury of six women and two men reached a unanimous verdict after a day and a half of deliberations.
Plaintiff Spring Lundberg said on KMUD News (Redway, Humboldt County) that the activists hope law enforcement all over the country will hear this message, that they can't just use pepper spray on non-aggressive people who don't follow orders. She said that some of the women jurors were crying, showing that it was clearly an emotional experience for them. Spring, who was only 17 when she had pepper spray put in her eyes with Q-tips, just turned 25 two days ago. She thanked all of the many people who helped raise money for the costs of bringing the case to trial three times, and all of the people who donated funds and services.
No Pepper Spray on Nonviolent Protesters!
www.nopepperspray.org
Lundberg vs. County of Humboldt
aka the Pepper Spray Q-Tip Case or the Pepper Spray Eight Case
formerly Headwaters Forest Defenders vs. County of Humboldt
Media contacts: Heidi Terbrack, 707-496-7645
Karen Pickett, 510-548-3113 (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters)
Updated Friday 4/29/2005 at 6:00 PM
Update Friday 4/29/05 5:30 PM
Plaintiffs and their lawyers were joined at a press conference Friday by juror Athene Aquino, who provided additional details about the jury's deliberations. She said the nominal $1 per plaintiff damage award was the result of compromises to reach a unanimous verdict. Some of the jurors wanted to award substantial damages to plaintiffs for the pain, suffering and psychological effects inflicted on them. Others felt the force used was excessive, but thought there was no lasting injury, and didn't want to find for the plaintiffs if it meant paying out substantial taxpayer dollars. Ms. Aquino said many of the jurors felt that the jury instructions given by Judge Illston pushed them toward granting only nominal damages. Some of them believed the police witnesses who said pepper spray caused only temporary discomfort rather than the excruciating, extreme pain that plaintiffs testified to. Ms. Aquino said she was convinced by viewing the police videotapes that excessive force was used, and that she cried when viewing the scenes where burly officers held young women roughly and swabbed their eyes with pepper spray drenched Q-tips.
Defense lawyer Nancy Delaney has told reporters that her view is that the award of nominal damages means the defendants will not have to pay the attorney's fees and court costs of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' lawyers disagree. Both sides have 30 days in which to file motions before the judge enters the final verdict.
Lawyers Dennis Cunningham, Tony Serra and Bill Simpich gave strong statements at the press conference, saying they thought the jury's message was clear enough that using pepper spray on nonviolent demonstrators was unconstitutional, and law enforcement agencies nationwide should take note. Plaintiffs Spring Lundberg, Banka Schneider and Noel Tendick also gave statement saying they felt vindicated by the verdict, and that the long, difficult litigation had been worth it.
The press conference was covered by one network TV affiliate and several radio stations, including KPFA News, which is broadcast from 6 PM to 7 PM at 94.1 MHz and available for Internet listening on demand at www.kpfa.org
A victory celebration will be held Saturday night at the Berkeley Unitarian hall.
Links to several detailed news reports have been added to our News and Commentary Index and Links page.
————————————————————————————————————————
Latest Press Releases
For immediate release Thursday, April 28, 2005
Photographs taken from a controversial videotape reportedly shot by the Eureka, Calif., Police Department shows what Headwaters Forest Defenders allege are police officers rubbing the eyes of demonstrators with cotton swabs soaked in liquid pepper spray during a sit-in at the office of Rep. Frank Riggs in Eureka, Calif., Oct. 16, 1997. The Supreme Court refused, Monday, Nov. 4, 2002, to keep a California sheriff and his deputy from being sued for ordering the pepper-spraying of shackled anti-logging protesters. (AP Photo/Headwaters Forest Defenders, ho, File) |
Jury Finds Sheriff's Use Of Pepper Spray Unconstitutional
Press Conference at noon Friday, April 29, 2005, outside the San Francisco Federal Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Ave. (at Polk St.)
Contacts: Heidi Terbrack, (707) 496-7645 Media Office: (510) 548-3113
San Francisco—After only twelve hours of deliberation, the federal jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that Humboldt County Sheriffs used excessive force when they swabbed pepper spray into the eyes of forest activists. The jurors found that former Sheriff Dennis Lewis and current Sheriff Gary Philp approved illegal use of force on passive protestors. The jury also held the City and County liable for its officers’ unconstitutional actions.
Plaintiff Spring Lundberg was thrilled by the decision. “We won a unanimous YES! This was excessive force and the decision will reverberate to law enforcement across the country. This is a hard-won victory for preserving all our civil liberties.”
The jury awarded nominal damages to each plaintiff. Elated activist Sam Neuwirth said, “This is what I wanted. This case has never been about money. It’s about the jury saying they respect people who stand up for their beliefs and that the police can’t do whatever they want.”
Plaintiffs’ attorney Tony Serra agreed, “We were always in it for the principle and not for the money. The police’s application of pepper spray to the eyes of non-violent activists was akin to torture and today’s verdict should help to keep it from ever happening again.”
The activists injured by the sheriffs’ applications of pepper spray sued the Humboldt County Sheriffs' Dept. and Eureka Police in fall of 1997, arriving at the current trial in federal court in San Francisco after two previous trials that ended without verdict.
“Brutalizing peaceful protesters will not be tolerated,” said plaintiff Noel Tendick. “This victory rings in the hearts of any who would peacefully stand up for their beliefs. Onward!”
-30-
————————————————————————————————————————
For immediate release: April 28, 2005, 5:30pm
Victory for Forest Activists in Pepper Spray Trial
Jury Finds Sheriffs Used Excessive Force
Contacts Heidi Terbrack, (707) 496-7645 Media Office (510) 548-3113
San Francisco—After three days of deliberations, a federal jury returned a verdict finding that Humboldt County Sheriffs used excessive force when they daubed liquid pepper spray into the eyes of forest activists.
The eight activist plaintiffs were arrested in 1997 at three separate protests in Humboldt County as they worked to save the Headwaters Forest from logging.
The unprecedented application of pepper spray on passive, immobile protesters was part of a "get tough policy" implemented by the County as more and more people protested liquidation logging of redwoods in Northern California.
The activists injured by the sheriffs’ applications of pepper spray sued the Humboldt County Sheriffs' Dept. and Eureka Police in 1997, arriving at the current trial in federal court in San Francisco after two previous trials that ended without verdict.
Press packets including video footage and courtroom drawings are available through the media office
-30-
source: http://www.nopepperspray.org/ 29apr2005
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |