top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Key Documents Detailing Santa Cruz Police Spying Now Available Online

by Town Crier
Key documents from the ACLU Public Records Act request are available in pdf form.
tony_1-24-06.jpgnvaluc.jpg
In response to an ACLU Public Records Act request, the Santa Cruz Police Department has produced over 200 pages relating to their undercover infiltration of a peaceful New's Year's parade group known as Last Night Santa Cruz. Though the documents produced were incomplete in relation to the Public Records Act request, they portray a department with little concern for the privacy rights of peaceful community members and a seeming disdain for the use of diplomacy as investigation technique.

For seemingly no reason, members of the "undercover duo" who were supposedly assigned to find out what the New Year's parade was going to entail, took the names and birthdates of peaceful perceived parade organizers and documented details of a peaceful demonstration -- completely unrelated to the "Last Night Parade" -- that took place in front of the GAP over the holiday season.

For more information on the Santa Cruz Police Department spying on peaceful community groups, see:

audio.gif Audio: FSRN: SCPD Spying Update

image.gif Photos: Santa Cruzans Speak Out Against Police Infiltration and for an Independent Investigation

previous coverage: Council votes to continue to do nothing about spying (again) || "Just Us" Action Against SCPD Spying || Police Infiltrate Peaceful Parade Organizers
§Santa Cruz PD files on peaceful parade organizers
by Town Crier
last-night-records-request-docs-1.pdf_600_.jpg
(First photo of Councilman Tony Madrigal courtesy of Bradley)
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Rico
Here are a selection of documents from the 200 pages of records we got from the police department that I sent to the City Council. I omitted only extraneous items and included items I thought would help them make informed decisions about this issue.

We would still like to see a strong response from the Council and a call for an independent investigation.
§.
by friend
I tried to download the document and only saw two pages inside - Wes' letter and the ACLU letter. Is there supposed to be more?
by Free Dmitry
there are 14 pages which i can see.
by SCPD Officers Who Monitor SC-IMC (reposted)
undercovers_please-destroy.jpg
These were not supposed to get out!

(some of the) SCPD Spying Documents
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/last-night-records-request-docs-1.pdf
by outraged
This is CoIntelPro/Stasi/Gestapo all over again, only now it's every two-bit Pig trough in the country. Just how bad do things have to get here before people understand a "counter-insurgency" war is taking shape against them (a la El Salvador in the '80s) and that they need to act accordingly?
by n5667
"This is CoIntelPro/Stasi/Gestapo all over again, only now it's every two-bit Pig trough in the country. Just how bad do things have to get here before people understand a "counter-insurgency" war is taking shape against them (a la El Salvador in the '80s) and that they need to act accordingly?"

After reading that 14 page .pdf file, I'll be honest, equating the SCPD with the Gestapo is pretty sad. But as soon as the SCPD start dragging citizens out of their homes and into death camps, I'll agree with you, but as it stands, 2 cops attending a public meeting is not Gestapo like behavior.

I have provided a link to wikipedia, because perhaps you simply don't know what the word means?..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo
by Justice
How the hell are we supposed to make informed decisions when you only care to provide 7% of the pages given through the freedom of information act. Why didnt you post all of it and let us decide whether or not it is revelant.
by Domestic Covert Action Continues...
destroy_undercovers.jpg
War At Home a book by Brian Glick
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/WarAtHome_page.html

"Government harassment of U.S. political activists clearly exists today, violating our fundamental democratic rights and creating a climate of fear and distrust which undermines our efforts to challenge official policy. Similar attacks on social justice movements came to light during the 1960s. Only years later did we learn that these had been merely the visible tip of an iceberg. Largely hidden at the time was a vast government program to neutralize domestic political opposition through "covert action" (political repression carried out secretly or under the guise of legitimate law enforcement).

The 1960s program, coordinated by the FBI under the code name "COINTELPRO," was exposed in the 1970s and supposedly stopped. But covert operations against domestic dissidents did not end. They have persisted and become an integral part of government activity...."
by Politically Incorrect
Gestapo??? n5667 is right, what is the matter with you people!? Do you realize how insulting that is to Jews? To compare 2 cops sitting in on a public meeting to the slaughter of millions of innocent Jewish lives is an outrage. You obviously don't know how good you have it in this country to make a statement like that.

I have been posting on Indy for almost a year and about 90% of my comments get deleted because I am very passionate about my beliefs. Apparently, you’re allowed to be outspoken, just as long as you do it from one specific perspective.
BUT...when I read statements like what has been made in this article, I realize that free speech is not on the agenda here. The agenda is not to foster diverse opinions to get to the bottom of these issues, but rather to find a scapegoat to justify how powerless and insignificant you feel. Maybe a better way to put it is "celebrate diversity...er, my definition of diversity".

It's a free country people, even for cops. You all planned on being all non-conformist and counter culture...that's fine. Just don't act so shocked when law enforcement does what we (tax payers) pay them to do and wants to find out how much.

What's the big deal? They let you go through with your little counter-culture rally. You should be happy. WHAT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED? WHAT HARRASMENT TOOK PLACE? You had your meeting and parade. I don't get it.

Since I actually pay taxes and help fund the police department, I'm glad the cops are watching you crazy kids. Who knows what you activists might pull. It takes some pretty twisted logic to feel "oppressed" and "violated" after having successfully pulled off last night. To me, a group that is prone to such a departure of reality is a menace to society and should be watched...closely.

Keep it up SCPD. Thanks for doing your job!

"…a seeming disdain for the use of diplomacy as investigation technique."

Diplomacy = trust, but verify. It’s not illegal, it’s smart.
by Rico
Not that it matters that much, but here is my opinion about the police spying from one who was there.

As far as I can tell, the SCPD weren't going to war on us, they weren't attempting to disrupt meetings, and they weren't making preparations to wisk us away to the camps. They were simply concerned about what they thought might be a public safety issue and so they did the easiest thing they could think of, sending undercover cops to the meetings.

I say this only because I don't want the true harm and the true outrage of what they did lost in hyperbole.

In infiltrating the meetings of a community group that showed no hint of serious criminal intent, they did violate the right of the attendees to free speech, free assembly, and privacy. They may well have violated the right to due process as well.

The courts have clearly argued in White v. David (1975) that the threat of infiltration and monitoring of peaceful groups risks chilling free speech thus violating state and federal constitutional protections. In response, the Attorney General of California recommended stringent guidelines for local PDs regarding police surveillance.

And to be clear, while the undercover officers DID disrupt meetings with their presence, it is not the behavior of the low-ranking officers that is the big issue. The important issue is the decision to infiltrate the group by high-ranking officers in the first place.

Looking at the Public Records Act documents, the decision to infiltrate the group was done very casually. As far as we can tell, there was no concern about civil liberties, no consultations with the city lawyer, and no discussion about the rights of those involved.

The man who made the decision to infiltrate the meeting is heading the internal police investigation. And while Deputy Chief Vogel assured me that he trusts that he will remain fair and objective as he leads the investigation, I don't share his confidence. The internal investigation, delivered to the City Council Feb 13th, will be highly suspect.

If you want to do something with your outrage, call up the city council members and demand a truly independent investigation (an investigator not chosen by city manager Dick Wilson).

http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/council/members.html
by Rico
Well it isn't a free country for cops who are on the clock. In fact, ostensibly they are public servents and working with the conent (and the tax money) of the people.

Because they have all the guns and all the power, there are important limits on their behavior and what they can and can't do.

They should and will be answerable to the people.

by Politically Incorrect
Rico, thank you for taking the rhetoric down a notch.

I have no problem with holding the police accountable and protecting our civil liberty’s from over zealous law enforcement. I have no issue with protecting the right to free speech. I was mainly responding to the comments posted by a few very un-enlightened people that expiated a form of naive group-think and name calling that I believe is also very damaging to civil discourse.

Question:
Did the organizers of Last Night fill out and file permit to have a parade with the SCPD?
I think the answer if no.

My issue:
If it is "no", than isn't Last Night an illegal parade? If a person or persons within the city limits is suspected of doing something illegal, at the very least, isn't it the job of the SCPD find out how illegal and put a stop to it?

If 2 of my neighbors were planning to steal my TV and they created a website that detailed the theft and gave a specific date and time of the theft. Then decided to have a neighborhood meeting to invite other neighbors to participate and maybe steal my stereo as well. If the SCPD found out about it, I would think that that would be within there jurisdiction to sit in on that meeting.
If during the meeting the thieves felt like they couldn't speak freely about there intentions to commit the crime with a police officer in the room, well I'm sorry but they don't have the right to commit the crime. Therefore that type of free speech is not protected. Nor is yelling fire in a theater, or shouting anti-Semitic slogans in a synagogue (or website).

In my opinion, you don't have the freedom to plan on breaking the law. The police do have the right to infiltrate such a meeting
by n5667
While many people seem to be puffing up their self importance, I'll wager a guess that the police (and therefore the city) were probably more concerned with the liability issues of a large group taking to the street without any insurance or safety precautions being taken with the city than gleefully looking forward to suppressing 1st amendment rights.

If the citizens of this city didn't think it was right you had to get permits to hold a parade, then you wouldn't have to. But I'm going to guess that once again the majority of Santa Cruz citizens and Indymedia are not exactly in sync...
by Rico
The permit process, with it's one million dollar bond, cascade of permit fees, and additional costs of police, fire, security and sanitation, poses an unreasonable barrier to free speech. A barrier that has been challenged in many municipalities.

Bad laws *should* be challenged. Just last month, in the words of the VIllage Voice, "A judge late on Monday took a bite out of the city's efforts to rein in the monthly Critical Mass rides when he ruled that the New York City law barring people from 'parading without a permit' is unconstitutional." More to the point, these streets are our streets and if we decide on New Year's to have a parade, we should have a parade.

And while I understand that the police might have had an *interest* in what was going on, legally speaking they didn't have the right to monitor the group without evidence of serious criminal intent. For instance, the police might have an *interest* in whether you are committing a crime in the privacy of your home, but they don't have the right to sneak in to find out.

(Jaywalking does not constitute serious criminal intent, by the way -- it's not even a misdemeanor, but a low-level infraction. In your example, depending on the cost of your stolen TV, your neighbors may be committing a felony.)
by n5667
"And while I understand that the police might have had an *interest* in what was going on, legally speaking they didn't have the right to monitor the group without evidence of serious criminal intent. For instance, the police might have an *interest* in whether you are committing a crime in the privacy of your home, but they don't have the right to sneak in to find out."

If you open your home to the public, is it still a crime for them to sneak in?.. I'm trying to figure out what the police did that's illegal - bad p.r, and perhaps not well done, but...
by Oscar G.
First of all, I like the way the new site looks. Very good job.

While I do think Rico makes some good points about the excessive hoops folks have to jump through to put on an event, I think it would be better to pass legislation to change it, rather than holding an illegal parade.

Let me explain a very similar situation I was in a few years ago in SC. I used to “run” a house that would put on music events in the evenings. It was great fun, the shows were free, and music that would not normally stop in SC got a chance to do so. But my ideal perception of it changed when a group of folks showed up and fucked up our house one night. I then realized that the minute something becomes and event open to the public, and there was no preparation to control people who do not have good intentions, shit hits the fan. That Is why I think this parade should have been planned with the city, so that an adequate number of police and preparation outside of this organization could have been included.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network