From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | Global Justice and Anti-Capitalism | Police State and Prisons
Arrest for no ID at Occupy Santa Cruz
by Marie Meroke
Friday Nov 4th, 2011 3:17 PM
Between 10 PM on Nov. 3, 2011 and 7 AM Nov. 4, 2011 sheriff's cited three and arrested one person for "lodging" on the Courthouse steps on Water St in Santa Cruz. The man arrested was cited for not having identification allegedly under the Patriot Act although intrinsically a violation of the Constitution. The aura of fascism impends upon the Occupy Wall Street movement which is partially supported by the City Council but evidently not by the County or Sheriff's Department. The "lodging" law is a nineteenth century Jim Crow law designed to keep transients from sleeping in public. The camp itself was not raided but only those sleeping on the courthouse steps. Four visits by the Sheriff's Department prevented sleep.
Last night, in four visits between 10 PM and 7 AM this morning,November 4, 2011. protesters sleeping on the Courthouse steps in Santa Cruz, California were wakened by Sheriffs who arrested one man and cited three others for "lodging," a nineteenth century Jim Crow law. The man arrested was charged with not having any identification, an apparent cause for arrest under the Patriot Act but also a precursor of fascism as in Nazi Germany when Jews and other undesirables were forced to constantly carry identification before they were deported to concentration camps.

The Sheriffs did not raid the campground itself as expected by protesters. Those sleeping in vehicles were not cited.

Protesters were told to sleep in the campground under the partial approval of the City Council. Evidently Santa Cruz County Supervisors do not support the Occupy Wall Street movement or Occupy Santa Cruz.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by StokeyBob
Saturday Nov 5th, 2011 7:46 AM
Watching this thing unfold in Greece on the news something came to mind. I saw people facing their police and throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails. It seemed odd because they are in reality on the same side. Law enforcement is getting ripped off the same as all of the rest of us. Then if you kick it up to a global scale if we don't regain control of our military, which seem to think they are the global police, someone is going to have to come and regain control of them for us.

I think the corruption of our fiat money is the root reason for the, "Occupy er's" and the "99% er's".
Maybe this will help make the danger of fiat money clear. Imagine you and me are setting across from each other. We create enough money to represent all of the world's wealth. Each one of us has one SUPER Dollar in front of him. You own half of everything and so do I. I'm the government though. I get bribed into creating a Central Bank. You're not doing what I want you to be doing so I print up myself eight more SUPER Dollars to manipulate you with. All of a sudden your SUPER Dollar only represents one tenth of the wealth of the world! That isn't the only thing though. You need to get busy and get to work because YOU'VE BEEN STIFFED with the bill for the money I PRINTED UP to get YOU TO DO what I WANTED.

That to me represents what has been happening to the economy, and us, and why so many of our occupations just can't keep up with the fake money presses.
by Robert Norse
Saturday Nov 5th, 2011 8:14 AM
See "Chris Doyon ("Commander X") Gets A Warning-less Lodging Ticket" at .
by mike
Saturday Nov 5th, 2011 10:22 AM
The person without id was not arrested because of the Patriot Act. Per 853.6 PC on probable cause that a person committed a misdemeanor (in the officer's presence) is required to be released with a citation - unless one of ten exceptions is in place. One of which is that the accussed does not have satisfactory ID. This law has been in effect long before the patriot act. These articles have so much spin that they are a joke.
by Wes
Saturday Nov 5th, 2011 5:26 PM
You are not required to identify yourself in California unless you are driving a vehicle. So if this was the cause of the arrest, it will be thrown out.
Ummmm, I have read the Patriot Act and bad as it and it does not say one has to have ID to just be. I would love to see a copy of the Police Report where this is claimed; The Supreme Court ruled that one must identify oneself to an officer but that means saying: "I am such and such a person..." Even the banking sections don't dictate what they should use to identify someone.