G20 Update: TCIMC Videographer Found Guilty by Pittsburgh Judge

Even after being subjected to the chemical weapons, arrested, and having my camera destroyed and footage stolen at the conclusion of September's G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, I still had two charges that I needed to fight. I was charged with failure to disperse and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors. So I journeyed back to Pittsburgh in hopes of getting the charges completely dismissed.

Upon arrival, I noticed the city was much more peaceful and “normal” without the barricades, military-style check-points, and the ever constant presence of the police photographers snapping pictures of everyone. At about the same time as I had arrived, my attorney was presenting evidence of my Twin Cities Indymedia press passes that I was wearing during my arrest. However, the district attorney chose to take a hard-line position and refused to outright dismiss my charges unless I was “credentialed” by the Secret Service. This was not a qualification that all media personnel could make though four journalists were able to get their charges dismissed this way, one from the Post-Gazette, a local mainstream paper and two from the University of Pittsburgh’s publication, the Pitt News.

Related: TCIMC G20 Coverage Archive | TCIMC Journalist, Other Mediamakers Arrested as Pittsburgh Says No to G20 (with video) | Pittsburgh IMC | G20Media.org

Before the hearing on Wednesday, I was also able to attend a portion of a public community forum on the G20 police conduct that took place in front of the Civilian Police Review Board, which is the City of Pittsburgh’s “independent agency to investigate citizen complaints”. The hearings had many people from the local community and visitors who complained about the LRAD use, harassment of journalists, police brutality incidents, and the general mayhem that took place in Pittsburgh streets over the two days of the Summit. People even cheered loudly when one speaker suggested the Mayor Ravenstahl, aka “Ravenlunatic”, be impeached if he is not voted out of office in the election in two weeks.  Obviously in this diverse crowd, threw was much animosity and outrage towards those in power.

The very next morning, I woke up early and went to the municipal courthouse where the preliminary hearings were to be held for a good portion of the G20 arrestees, over 91 people according to a local report. Not surprisingly, the courthouse was overwhelmed and we were forced to stand in line for around 20 minutes just to get inside and then proceed to stand in line to “check-in”. Even after this process, we then had to wait another few hours outside the courtrooms as they shuffled us from one room to another in crowded halls full of arrestees, supporters, media and attorneys.  Finally, after about four hours of standing and sitting around, the judge started to hear some of the G20 misdemeanor cases. Defendants were brought up in groups depending on their attorney and location of arrest. In the cases I watched, proceedings were focused on the Friday night arrests at the Pitt campus.

Preliminary hearings are centered around a lower standard of “prima facie” evidence to assert that the person was present and possibly could have committed the crime and do not use the same standards as regular criminal courts. In order to expedite the hearings in the mass arrest cases, the district judge Kevin E. Cooper allowed the District Attorney’s office to present a general overview of the police plans and conduct on the night of Friday, September 25^th that would apply to all defendants in that courtroom facing charges from that incident. The District Attorney brought in a large cardboard map of the Oakland streets and proceeded to have Lt. Trapp testify about the State’s story of the location of police lines, the LRAD, alleged places that were safe to “disperse to”, and the general orders given (all by the LRAD!). We learned that because the G20 was officially over, the Secret Service was no longer in charge that Friday evening but rather the local Pittsburgh authorities. However, this did not stop them from allowing two LRADs to roam the area that night and the subsequent mass arrests that followed. Most importantly, the commander even admitted that the Cathedral of Learning Lawn, the location of one of the larger mass arrests, was originally thought of as a place where the crowd could disperse.

After the general overview, each defendant had to be identified by the arresting officer, which caused a brief moment of surprise when the first arresting officers had difficulty naming the arrestees and finally were given permission to look at the original complaint. In addition to a counter-examination of any of the evidence presented by the State by each attorney, the defendant was allowed a brief statement in front of the judge to explain why they were there. Some of the student arrestees told stories of how they were trying to make it back to the dorms, trying to locate friends they were concerned about, or trying to get to another part of the campus. The judge also inquired about their GPA if he found out they were a student despite the fact that this appeared to have nothing to do with the elements of the offenses. For the student arrestees, this brought in mixed results with some being assigned future criminal hearings and others getting outright dismissals.

Besides those who had to continue on, other arrestees also had results that were less than pleasing. Before the hearings, each misdemeanor defendant was offered three choices: 1) plead guilty to a summary offense and pay a fine that would leave you with no ability to later appeal the charge or participate in a civil rights lawsuit, 2) do 50 hours of community service in exchange for a later dismissal, or 3) contest the charges. But for some of us who contested the charges, we still ended up being found guilty of a summary offense. Under Pennsylvania law, a summary offense is considered a step above a traffic offense but a step below a misdemeanor. This allows the magistrate judge to convict if they downgrade the charges without needing to take it to the traditional criminal court process that includes the right to a jury.

As we both had the same arresting officer, a Pitt student and I were grouped together next for our portions of the preliminary hearing. The DA then decided to call the “LRAD technician” who provided testimony on LRAD dispersal orders and uses. The arresting officer then correctly identified both of us by name and noted that he saw me two minutes before the arrest on the lawn “standing around”. Our attorney then argued for the dismissal of the disorderly conduct charges as they didn’t seem to apply to either me or the Pitt student as no one was testifying that we were doing anything disorderly. Finally, the judge allowed each of us to provide a very brief explanation on how we got on the lawn. The Pitt student testified he was trying to cross the lawn to get back to a dorm room in that general direction. Luckily, the Judge decided to dismiss all of his charges right there and he was finished with the process.

Then I testified that I was there videotaping the incidents of that night for Indymedia and noted that I did not really know the area so I was going in the general direction of where I thought I could go. He then suddenly seemed irate that I had mentioned I was working in a media role and then stated that as a “journalist – I should have known better” than to be out there at all. He then posed the question of if I was wearing a mask. I answered “yes” as I had a bandana around my neck and sometimes over my face if I felt the threat for chemical weapons being used on us was high. The judge appeared to not like that answer so I quickly added, “I was teargased the previous day,” in hopes I could get him to briefly understand that masks are often times used as protection methods and not always as a identity concealer. Regardless, after mentioning I had a mask on and was teargased the previous day, he made up his mind and fined me the maximum amount of $300 plus court costs and convicted me of the summary offense of disorderly conduct.

So I leave Pittsburgh with a conviction, still no word about my missing footage, no compensation for my destroyed camera, and the general feeling that the City of Pittsburgh is trying a blatant divide and conquer strategy amongst the arrestees.  Don’t get me wrong – after having volunteered for more than a year supporting and helping others fight bogus charges after the RNC 2008 convention – I understand the victory in every dismissal, especially dismissals that happen before the person is subject to tedious, long, spirit-draining, and often expensive process of getting through a court case.

It seems ironic that the same system that promotes “freedom of press" and “freedom to assemble” seems to squelch those two rights when we need to use them the most. The “established” press has a long history of looking the other way when injustice like police brutality is occurring or ignoring the people who have opinions that may not be popular in the mainstream society.  This makes it even more important that we do not allow the State to get away with criminalizing the right of everyone and anyone to film, report, write, or cover what they experience around them. After all, it was the camera phones and videos that instantly exposed the murder of Oscar Grant in Oakland, CA last year – where no CNN camera or “credentialed” journalist could be found. It was the grainy videotape shot with a handicam of Rodney King’s beating that shook up the City of Los Angeles and placed the issue of police brutality front and center in the public view. 

And finally at the G20, it was the numerous independent films that hit YouTube that showed everything from the militarized snatch-n-grab of a protester to the obvious informants to the students being terrorized in their dorms. Without these images, some people would have a difficult time believing that any of these incidents ever occurred. Even at the Wednesday hearing, a local reporter said that she was told to “stay away” by the officials from the G20 protest areas, stay off the streets, stay away from telling the whole story and allow the police state to stay hidden. Thus, the true intent of suppressing independent and decentralized media is that the more cameras out on the streets at anytime, anyplace – the harder it is stop. It is now obvious that one of the biggest threats is the person on the street with a camera that may sometimes point it in the right direction to capture moments that show the emperor has no clothing.

Melissa Hill