Major court ruling on protestor mass arrest lawsuit in DC

January 13, 2006

D.C. CIRCUIT RULING:
WASHINGTON D.C. POLICE CHIEF MAY BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THE MASS
ARREST OF NEARLY 400 PEOPLE

Court also rules that the Sept. 2002 mass arrest of protestors and
passers-by violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs

"A police badge is not a shield from personal responsibility."

PRESS CONTACT: Sarah Sloan 202-904-7949

On September 27, 2002, the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police
Department, working with federal law enforcement authorities, undertook a
political sweep and mass arrest of people who were engaged in, or in
proximity to, First Amendment protest activities against the IMF and
World Bank and the war in Iraq. The police trapped and arrested nearly four
hundred protestors, legal observers, tourists and passers-by in
Pershing Park in downtown Washington, D.C. Despite never being allowed to
leave the park, and no order ever being given for people in the park to
disperse, all those swept up were charged with "failure to obey" an
unidentified order that was never given.

The D.C. Circuit today ruled that "The mass arrest at Pershing Park
violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of plaintiffs. .
." The Court of Appeals ruling rejects the appeal by Chief of Police
Charles H. Ramsey, in which Ramsey claimed that he should not be held
personally liable for these sweeping constitutional rights violations,
clearing the way for a trial on Ramsey's responsibility. The Court also
upheld the District Court's denial of qualified immunity to Assistant
Chief of Police Peter Newsham who also commanded the arrests.

Plaintiffs, who are representatives of a certified class action, are
represented by Mara Verheyden-Hilliard and Carl Messineo of the
Partnership for Civil Justice (PCJ), also litigating on behalf of the National
Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee.

"A police badge is not a shield from personal responsibility. Those who
use their authority to target and jail others for engaging in free
speech and political action must know that they cannot act with impunity,"
stated Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard. "This ruling is a vindication for the
Barham plaintiffs who have been steadfast in insisting on accountability
at the highest levels for this massive violation of constitutional
rights."

PCJ has filed a series of lawsuits challenging the practices of the
District of Columbia M.P.D., the F.B.I., and other law enforcement
agencies which, acting jointly, participate in unconstitutional tactics to
disrupt lawful protest and assembly and unlawfully use mass arrests as a
means to sweep political activists off the street and truncate
demonstration activity.

The case is Barham et al. v Ramsey et al., No.04-5388, slip opinion
(D.C. cir. Jan 13, 2006). The opinion is available at
http://www.JusticeOnline.org.

PRESS CONTACT: Sarah Sloan 202-904-7949

-30-

Partnership for Civil Justice
1901 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 607
Washington DC 20006
(202) 530-5630 Fax: (202) 530-5634
http://www.JusticeOnline.org