Opinion ID: 772158
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Organized Lawlessness

Text: 61 The district court concluded that one of the reasons the officers needed to use the pepper spray to effect the arrests of the protesters was because the officers had a substantial interest in preventing the organized lawlessness of a large group of protesters. Each incident involved two to seven protesters in lock-down devices -including six young women, two of whom were sixteen and seventeen years old. During both the Scotia and Riggs protests, the protesters in the lock-down devices were demonstrating inside the Pacific Lumber Company building and Congressman Riggs's office. They were physically and visually separated from the large peaceful demonstrations that were taking place outside the two buildings. The evidence regarding the Bear Creek protest is at best conflicting as to how many protesters -other than the four in lock-down devices -were present. The officers claim that many protesters were hiding in the woods. But there is no evidence that a large, lawless group was anywhere in sight. 62 Most importantly, the uncontroverted evidence is that the decision to use pepper spray on the protesters during each incident was not made because of the presence of a large group of protesters. The officer in charge during each incident testified that the decision to use pepper spray was made solely because of the difficulty in using a Makita grinder to remove the black bears. With respect to the Scotia and Riggs protests, all the officers who testified stated that the presence of the protesters outside the buildings was not a factor in the decision to use the pepper spray on the protesters inside the buildings. 63 In fact, the defendants consistently testified that the pepper spray was needed during each of the protests simply because a handful of protesters had used lock-down devices, which defendants argued constituted active resistance to arrest. But this characterization of the protesters' conduct is belied by the Eureka Police Department's own definition of active resistance, with which Sheriff Lewis agreed. According to that written definition, active resistance occurs when the subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object. No evidence in the record suggests that the protesters here attempted to inflict pain or serious injury on the arresting officers. 64 Indeed, there is no evidence supporting the notion that the police needed to use pepper spray in this case to maintain order and preserve the rights of its citizens against a large group of lawless and menacing protesters. Forrester, 25 F.3d at 807 (quoting Bray, 506 U.S. at 287 (Kennedy, J., concurring)). The force used to effect arrests can be deemed reasonable only on the basis of the facts and circumstances confronting the police when the arrests took place. Such force cannot be justified on the basis of abstract notions of law and order. Bray was not an excessive force case. Justice Kennedy's cautionary words were uttered in the context of describing when deficiencies in the resources of state and local law enforcement may necessitate the involvement of federal authorities to protect the lives and property of citizens or to enforce the criminal law. Bray, 506 U.S. at 287-88 (quoting 42 U.S.C. S 10502(3)). His words should not be invoked to justify the use of force to effect arrests in factual circumstances that do not justify the use of force. 65