Last Night DIY Parade Talk-About

cops are not invited.

In October 2005, Santa Cruz police learned about the planned grassroots New Year's Eve parade. Without attempting to contact parade organizers, SCPD chose to send two undercover officers to the planning meetings held in a private residence to learn everything they could about the group and the event. In the internal investigation, they claim to have been alarmed by what they described as "a defiant tone."

Though the initial conclusion of undercover officers was that the parade planning group “will be a peaceful gathering” and that they “have nothing to hide,” SCPD made no attempt to contact the group and continued to infiltrate the group for another three months from October to December.
SCPD used their presence at the planning meetings to gather information about other community groups and First Amendment activities taking place.. They used this information to monitor events and tip off other outside agencies.

In the wake of the emerging scandal, the Santa Cruz City Council stonewalled the process showing more concern for the "due process rights" of the police than the civil rights of parade organizers. Records released after the incident revealed a pattern of abuses, including infiltrating parade organizers, monitoring other unrelated groups and first amendment activities, and compiling dossiers of organizers. Six months later, after pressure from the community and the ACLU, after the city's own police auditor concluded that police had violated the civil rights of citizens, the city finally put into place a grossly inadequate SCPD policy on police spying.

While the new policy puts some limits on undercover activities, it leaves other police activities unchecked. Under the new rules, even if you are engaged in legal constitutionally protected first amendment activities, Santa Cruz police will still be able to video and audio record you, listen to your phone calls, read your mail and email, keep notes about your organization, tail you, monitor your website, subscribe to your email lists, and examine membership lists. The city failed in its promise to pass a policy providing strong protections for first amendment rights

The police spying scandal was covered by local and regional newspapers, TV, radio, and weeklies. San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Sentinel (daily), Watsonville-Pajaronian (daily), Monterey Herald, Contra Costa Times, Metro Santa Cruz (weekly), Santa Cruz Good Times (weekly), Berkeley Daily Planet, Pacifica Radio, Free Speech Radio News, , KUSP FM Central Coast, KZSC FM Santa Cruz, KSCO AM Santa Cruz, KSBW TV Salinas, KPIX TV San Francisco, CBS TV San Francisco, IndyBay Indymedia, and Indymedia Santa Cruz.

For links to media articles, check out the Last Night press section.

In July, Councilmember Rotkin asked the City Manager's office to reply to ACLU concerns that the police surveillance guidelines were inadequate. Mark Schlosberg's letter can be seen at http://indybay.org/uploads/2006/06/27/schlosbergtowilson.pdf .

The cosmetic Skerry-Wilson guidelines were unilaterally proclaimed by Mayor Mathews last July without any formal input from the public at a City Council meeting, or vote from the City Council or its (Rotkin-chaired) "Public Safety" Committee. (Skerry is our police chief; Wilson is our City Manager-for-Life)

I spoke with Schlosberg by phone two weeks ago. He had heard nothing from Wilson, Skerry, Mathews,or anyone else on the city staff.

I also had the following correspondence with "Police Auditor" Bob Aronson:


>From: aaronson [at] sonic.net
>To: "Robert Norse" <rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Third question (B)
>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:26:38 -0800 (PST)
> Bob:
>
> Finally, do you know if City Manager Dick Wilson, Police Chief Skerry, Mayor Mathews, or any
> other city official has replied to the Public Safety Committee's request that the City respond to
> the ACLU's concerns about the police surveillance guidelines, mentioned back in July at their
> meeting where we were both present? Have you heard about any further progress on
> these guidelines?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert Norse


[Aronson's reply:] I have not heard anything further on the issue.