By Carlos Miller
You might not agree with Cara Jennings’ politics or even the way she demonstrates these politics, but you should still wonder how she could have been arrested on a sole charge of resisting arrest without violence.
After all, wouldn’t police need to have some sort of probable cause to arrest her in the first place?
That would be the case if you’re abiding by Florida law which states the following:
Resisting without violence is governed by Florida Statutes 843.02 and requires proof of resisting, obstructing, or opposing a law enforcement officer performing a “lawful execution of any legal duty”. Therefore, lawful arrest is an element that the State must prove in order to establish that the defendant resisted arrest without violence.
But Miami Police obviously has its own laws they abide by, which are not stated in any law book.
Jennings, a Lake Worth City Commissioner, was arrested Monday along with two other people as they stood on a sidewalk protesting in front of the Israeli consulate in downtown Miami.
Jennings was standing on stilts while trying to call attention to an attack on Tristan Anderson, a human rights observer in Palestine who was left in critical condition after Israeli troops hit him in the head with a tear gas canister.
“The police requested that we not stand in front of the consulate and we asserted it was a very wide sidewalk and we were allowed to be there but that was the basis of the arrest,” she said.
The protesters included members of the South Florida Palestinian Solidarity Network, South Florida Jews for Justice and Lake Worth Global Justice Group. The other two activists arrested were Mohammed Malik and Rich Morales.
Malik is the pro-Palestinian activist in my Lone Jew video who guided the two other pro-Palestinian activists back across the street after they tried to intimidate the Lone Jew from exercising his First Amendment rights, as vulgar as his words may have been.
He obviously knows that standing on a public sidewalk exercising your First Amendment rights is not illegal no matter how unpopular your opinion may be.
Which explains why police could not find a more concrete charge than resisting arrest without violence.
Popularity: 1% [?]
33 responses so far ↓
1 genewitch // Mar 18, 2009 at 2:16 AM
charges will be dropped; they just wanted them out of there. wonder why?
2 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2009 at 2:40 AM
Probably because people inside the consulate complained and police, rather than explain to them that the protesters have the right to be there, tried to accommodate them by moving the protesters across the street.
3 Rick // Mar 18, 2009 at 5:49 AM
From the Palm Beach Post…
“Moving the protestors across the street allowed the public to move in and out of the consulate building while allowing the protests to be seen and heard, according to a Miami Police Department report. Police said the protest, which included drums and speaking with a bull horn, caused the Israeli consulate at 100 N. Biscayne Blvd. to be placed on lockdown ‘because of concerns.’ ”
So it looks like the police had requested that they move because they were in some way interfering with the movement of pedestrian traffic in and out of the building.
Since I wasn’t there, I don’t know if the above is accurate or not, but it appears at least to explain why the officers asked them to move.
And if the protesters didn’t comply with an officer’s lawful order, then it explains the arrest.
.
4 genewitch // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:40 AM
i don’t know that “move because you can’t protest here” is a lawful order.
Just sayin’
5 jones // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:05 AM
Police said the protest, which included drums and speaking with a bull horn…
CODE OF ORDINANCES City of MIAMI, FLORIDA
Sec. 36-1. Unnecessary, excessive or unusual noises–Generally.
It shall be unlawful to make any loud, unnecessary, excessive or unusual noise in the city.
(Code 1967, § 36-1; Code 1980, § 36-1)
and
Sec. 36-3. Loud or boisterous noises generally.
No person shall create any loud or boisterous noise which may annoy persons on any street or sidewalk or in any building adjacent thereto.
(Code 1967, § 36-3; Code 1980, § 36-3)
Looks like she was violating at least two city ordinances.
6 Scott Chamness // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:36 AM
But were those city ordinances worthy of arrest? And if so, why was she not charged with that as well?
7 300baud // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:41 AM
It reminds me of religious science. “How can we apply the law to achieve the end we have already decided upon?”
8 jones // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Resisting without violence is governed by Florida Statutes 843.02 and requires proof of resisting, obstructing, or opposing a law enforcement officer performing a “lawful execution of any legal duty”.
Despite the article’s claim that a lawful arrest is an element that the State must prove in order to establish that the defendant resisted arrest without violence, a lawful arrest is not an element of resisting without violence, all it requires is resisting, obstructing, or opposing a law enforcement officer performing a “lawful execution of any legal duty”. I believe the police have a legal duty to enforce city ordinances, if your violating an ordinance and they tell you to stop and you continue then I think that would fall under, resisting, obstructing or opposing.
Why wasn’t she charged with that as well I don’t know, maybe they were feeling generous, maybe they just wanted to resolve the situation and the resisting was enough to accomplish that, maybe it was her lucky day. I don’t know why they didn’t charge her but I don’t think it matters.
The law is resisting an OFFICER without violence, not resisting ARREST without violence, here it is again, do you see anywhere in here that it says resisting arrest?
843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.–Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
9 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Rick,
If that were the case, the police could have charged them with interference or obstruction or even “unlawful assembly”, which is as unconstitutional as it sounds.
Ordering them to leave a sidewalk because they simply did not want them there sounds way too familiar for me.
In my case, despite them coming with nine misdemeanors to justify their arrest, police were unable to come up with a law that specifically refers to standing on a sidewalk, so maybe one doesn’t exist.
Which explains why they only charged her with resisting arrest without violence.
10 jones // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Sec. 36-1. Unnecessary, excessive or unusual noises–Generally.
It shall be unlawful to make any loud, unnecessary, excessive or unusual noise in the city.
(Code 1967, § 36-1; Code 1980, § 36-1)
and
Sec. 36-3. Loud or boisterous noises generally.
No person shall create any loud or boisterous noise which may annoy persons on any street or sidewalk or in any building adjacent thereto.
(Code 1967, § 36-3; Code 1980, § 36-3)
Drums and a bull horn, sounds like loud, boisterous and annoying to me. Maybe you only want the police to enforce laws you agree with.
11 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Jones,
The point is, they didn’t charge her with any of those.
12 jones // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Carlos,
It doesn’t matter, they don’t have to, she was resisting an officer, would it make you happier if they charged her with everything? She probably was hoping to get arrested to bring more attention to her cause.
13 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Jones,
I’m just asking for consistency and logic in applying and enforcing the law.
To charge somebody only with resisting arrest without violence makes it sound as if police can walk up to anybody and arrest them, even if they are minding their own business doing nothing illegal.
To resist arrest, there needs to be some underlying charge. There needs to be probable cause that the person is committing a crime.
14 sickntired // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:30 AM
consistency and logic by the police is a rare thing.
15 jones // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:32 AM
The law is resisting an OFFICER not ARREST. She was breaking the law, they asked her to stop and she didn’t so they arrested her. Sounds logical to me to arrest somebody when they break the law.
16 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Jones,
In order to justify a resisting an OFFICER charge, the officer must be performing a “lawful execution of any legal duty.”
It is explained more in detail on the following site.
“The problem child of the chapter is Florida Statute 843.02, named “resisting officer without violence”. It is often known as “resisting arrest without violence”, or “resisting without”. It is a first degree misdemeanor, and carries a maximum sentence of one year in the county jail.
In essence, this subsection of the statute states that “whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer . . . in the lawful execution of any legal duty without offering or doing violence” is guilty of a first degree misdemeanor.
Problems arise in multiple situations – usually that the officer didn’t have the right to detain or question the citizen in the first place, was carrying out an illegal search or seizure, was unlawfully trying to enter a home, or was demanding a citizen do or not do an act that was actually legal.”
http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=FFL&Category_Code=Resisting-Arrest-Battery-On-An-Officer-Florida
17 jones // Mar 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Problems arise in multiple situations – usually that the officer didn’t have the right to detain or question the citizen in the first place, was carrying out an illegal search or seizure, was unlawfully trying to enter a home, or was demanding a citizen do or not do an act that was actually legal.”
Maybe in other cases this could be true, but in this case they were justified in arresting her.
Your article says, 1)You might not agree with Cara Jennings’ politics or even the way she demonstrates these politics, but you should still wonder how she could have been arrested on a sole charge of resisting arrest without violence.
You should wonder no more because she was breaking the law and resisting then officers lawful orders to stop breaking the law.
2) After all, wouldn’t police need to have some sort of probable cause to arrest her in the first place?
They did have probable cause, she was violating at least 2 city ordinances
3)But Miami Police obviously has its own laws they abide by, which are not stated in any law book.
The above statement should be removed from your article because it is an opinion based on your misunderstanding of the law.
18 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Jones,
So if a judge asks the cops why they arrested her and they respond by informing him that she was violating at least two ordinances, you don’t think the judge is going to ask them why they did not charge her with these violations?
Because now it seems like Monday morning quarterbacking.
19 Joel Lawson // Mar 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
jones wrote: “She was breaking the law, they asked her to stop and she didn’t ”
Let’s make this real lean and efficient:
1. Which law do you suggest she was breaking?
2. “They asked her to stop” doing what exactly, which you suggest was a violation of the law (and see question 3. What did she fail to stop doing, that was a violation of the law?
20 jones // Mar 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Carlos,
Gee, somebody Monday morning quarterbacking the police, how unusual.
But to answer your question. I don’t know what they would tell the judge. Maybe after they arrested her the people who complained about her were satisfied and decided not to press charges on which is basically a disturbing the police charge. If the police respond to a fight and end up arresting somebody for resisting but nobody wants to press charges against that person for assault they would still arrest him for the resisting.
I wasn’t there so I don’t know their reason, all I know is what I have read and from what I read they did nothing wrong.
21 jones // Mar 18, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Joel,
1) See post #5
2) See post #5
22 Joel // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:57 PM
You have failed to answer the question as to what activity the police asked her to stop? You said she was breaking the law, and they asked her to stop. According to the article, they asked her to stop standing on that side of the street, and to move across the street. There is nothing in the information that indicates they asked her to stop her verbal protest, nor did they charge her with violation of the laws you cite.
23 Rick // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Carlos: the police didn’t arrest them before giving them the lawful order to move and unblock the entrance because they were providing them the opportunity to do their thing from the other side of the street. And, still, that wasn’t good enough for the protesters.
They had received complaints from the tenants of the building, according to the police report, and they were blocking pedestrian traffic in and out of the building.
Again, you and I and no one here was there and saw what what happened. We can only go by what was reported.
.
24 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Rick,
So you’re saying they were arrested for making noise or for blocking the entrance or for not moving from the sidewalk?
Then why did police not list that among the charges?
I am surprised, however, that they didn’t throw in a disorderly conduct in there.
25 Rick // Mar 18, 2009 at 9:27 PM
I’m not saying anything, Carlos, I’m just reading the Palm Beach Post story that I linked to early. It’s pretty clear.
“Jennings, an environmental activist and member of Lake Worth Global Justice, was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest without violence along with two other protestors, Muhammed Malik of Miami and Richard Morales of Largo, after they refused to move across lanes of traffic to a protest area designated by police.”
.
26 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Ah, I see, they refused to get into the “free speech zone.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones
27 Moonlight // Mar 19, 2009 at 2:14 AM
You deleted my comment and you are talking about freedom of speech?.
Ja!.
28 Carlos Miller // Mar 19, 2009 at 3:43 AM
Moonlight,
I didn’t delete anything so go fuck yourself with your lies and baseless accusations.
29 Joel Lawson // Mar 19, 2009 at 8:59 AM
“lawful order to move and unblock the entrance”
Oh, they were charged with blocking traffic or an entrance? That isn’t in the charges.
The circus of illogic continues.
30 Fascist Nation // Mar 22, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Don’t fret. The prosecutor’s office will simply add charges after reviewing the situation. SOP. Despite the fact that — yes, the cop was obligated to charge her with something else at the same time. And the courts won’t bat an eye.
31 jones // Mar 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM
If it makes people happy they will add a charge even though they are not obligated. If I was in her shoes I sure wouldn’t want my supporters calling for more charges but hey what are friends for.
32 Joel // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Retroactive charges? That would go over well with the judge, and the public.
33 Backyard Wrestling DVD // May 15, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly regarding it and love learning much more on this topic. Within the event that possible, as you gain expertise, can you mind updating your weblog along with an increase of information? This is extremely helpful for me personally.
Leave a Comment