Lazy Reporter Ignores Heart of the Story

When it comes to news stories about crime and legal matters, the press tends to not merely bury the lede, but omit it. A case in point is how San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Sabin Russell covered a New Year’s Day altercation on the Golden Gate Bridge involving police and roughly a dozen antiwar activists including Medea Benjamin of CodePink. The peaceniks had planned to walk across the bridge at noon in honor of the 3,000 American soldiers who have died in Iraq. But the group was met by a phalanx of cops from three different law enforcement agencies who wouldn’t let them use the designated pedestrian walkway. A standoff ensued which culminated three hours later in the arrest of Benjamin and her cohorts for trespassing.

The obvious point that needs to be addressed is why it suddenly became illegal to use a bridge that is generally open to the public for pedestrian traffic. But Russell’s article probed the question of alleged lawlessness only so far as to report that the police had “security concerns.” Russell’s pathetically slight nod to a rather salient issue left readers with the impression that police authority in post-9/11 San Francisco is determined solely by how the cops assess safety considerations. But actually, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District requires a permit for demonstrations on the bridge no matter how the police feel about any particular gathering, and assembling there without such official permission is what theoretically authorizes the cops to arrest people for trespassing on public property.

It apparently never occurred to Russell to politely ask one of the many officers in his proximity to identify the law that applies to the situation on the bridge, nor did the reporter bother to look up the pertinent statute before he filed his dispatch. (When we spoke by phone, Russell told me he had been on the scene, but it was too difficult to get information out of the cops, and he didn’t have much time to write his piece.)

Admittedly, the law is confusing, but it nonetheless represents the heart of this story, and Russell should have ascribed significance to it, instead of just barely alluding to it as if it were an incidental detail. Section F(2) of Master Ordinance 2006, which sets forth regulations pertaining to use of district properties for expressive activities, states: “No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies, or demonstrations...without a permit issued by the District...” And according to Section F(7) of the same ordinance: “Any person who conducts any activity on District property in violation of any provision of this Regulation shall be deemed to have trespassed on District property not intended for public use and shall be subject to the sanctions for criminal trespass established in California Streets and Highway Code, Section 27174.2.”

The above statutory text might seem unambiguous enough, but it's not. For one thing, Section 27174.2 consists of more than one subsection, and when I spoke yesterday to California Highway Patrol spokeswoman Mary Ziegenbein, she told me that the CodePink arrestees had been cited for allegedly violating subsection (a), which I quickly found out refers only to people who trespass “on any portion of the bridge that is not intended for public use.” But as I later reminded Ziegenbein, Benjamin and her group were on a portion of the bridge that is intended for public use. I also told Ziegenbein that subsection (b) states: “Every person who trespasses on district property other than that referred to in subdivision (a) is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Although there’s no explicit reference to it, the walkway could accurately be described as “property other than that referred to in subdivision (a).” As such, if the pedestrians violated anything, it would be subsection (b), not (a). Understandably, Ziegenbein replied, “Hmm...”

This morning I received the following email message from Ziegenbein: “After our discussion, I looked at the citations that were issued to the protestors and observed that the correct (b) subsection was cited. It was a clerical error in the printed arrest log which was what I was reading off of.”

Ziegenbein's note implies finality, but as I mentioned above, Section F(7) of the Master Ordinance (great name, by the way) refers only to individuals who are on “property not intended for public use.” So as the statute is worded, even if someone violates a portion of Section F while on a part of the bridge that is for public use, the person is to be charged as if he or she is actually in an area that is not for public use. Take a deep breath (and maybe a nap), folks, and then let me know if you come up with some other meaning.

If my interpretation is correct, the question of whether or not the pedestrians were properly cited has presented itself anew, because subsection (b) of 27174.2 seems to be inapplicable inasmuch as Section F(7) of the good old Master Ordinance indicates. Of course, subsection (a) also seems to be inapplicable, because it refers only to conduct on a part of the bridge that is “not intended for public use.”

For her part, Benjamin insists her peace posse had planned a “solemn march,” and she points out that large groups of tourists and cyclists often travel across the bridge without a permit. Benjamin has a valid argument; it's not known how authorities distinguish between clustered humans who need a permit, and those who don’t.

So what is the City of San Francisco to do? I don’t see that it has any choice but to dismiss the charges and rewrite the statutes using language that adequately informs the public when and where a permit is required.

In the aftermath of Monday’s incident, there's been much talk about whether or not the police acted appropriately. It’s hard for me to judge, because I didn’t witness whatever happened. But given that they reasonably believed the marchers required a permit and didn’t have one, I think it’s fair to conclude that the cops exhibited a generous amount of restraint by hanging out with Benjamin’s group for half of the afternoon before making any arrests. On the other hand, if the police gave undue emphasis to their “security concerns” (which are mostly irrelevant), and too little emphasis to the permit requirement (which is supposed to be the primary determinant for a trespassing violation), they deserve to be faulted for mishandling the situation. Also, one cop lost his cool and abused a television cameraman. You can see video of that encounter by clicking here, and a still photo by clicking here.

Safety is certainly a legitimate concern with respect to vehicular traffic. Mary Currie, the Public Affairs Director of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, told me that when CodePink protested on the bridge in October (also without a permit), the action caused four fender benders. Since I’ve spared Chronicle staffers the time and trouble of doing legal research, they can now devote themselves to either corroborating or refuting Currie’s claim. If it turns out she’s wrong, one could plausibly argue that demonstrating on the bridge is relatively harmless. But if it can be confirmed that the antiwar agitators are responsible for rubbernecking that led to multiple car accidents, someone at the Chronicle should ask Benjamin to explain how repeatedly subjecting innocent people to peril is consistent with CodePink’s well-known commitment to nonviolence. -- Jeff Norman