 |
| Police brutality at Standing Rock 2016. |
National Attorneys Organization, Battling Police Brutality, Supports Standing Rock Water Protectors in Federal Appeals Court
Brenda Norrell
Censored News
May 7, 2022
The National Police Accountability Project, composed of attorneys nationwide, has filed in federal appeals court in support of Standing Rock Water Protectors. The attorneys told the court that the force used against Water Protectors was "unreasonably excessive," and violated their Fourth Amendment right, which protects people from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
"NPAP agrees with the argument of appellants that the force used was unreasonably excessive and in violation of appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights," NPAP said in its summary in the 32-page amicus brief filed in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in North Dakota on April 29, 2022.
The attorneys' organization defends peaceful protesters, including those at George Floyd protests, who have been injured by tear gas, bean bags shot out of shotguns, rubber bullets and other munitions fired by law enforcement.
The attorneys are taking a stand against police brutality and defending peaceful protesters who are subjected to force and restrained.
"Over the last two years, NPAP members have encountered a disturbing trend of law enforcement agencies using violent tactics to suppress peaceful protests, including using impact munitions and tear gas against people engaged in lawful First Amendment activity,' NPAP told the Appeals Court in the Standing Rock case.
The amicus, or friend of the court document, was filed in the Standing Rock case stating excessive force by law enforcement resulted in critical injuries for Water Protectors. They were defending the waters of the Missouri River from construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, owned by Energy Transfer Partners, 2016--2017.
The class action, civil rights lawsuit, is Vanessa Dundon et. al. vs. Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier, et. al. Standing Rock Water Protectors are appealing in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in North Dakota.
In the lower court, U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor sided with law enforcement in December. In the case, Water Protectors said temperatures dropped below freezing on the night of November 20, 2016, when they were sprayed with water and fired on with rubber bullets, tear gas and munitions.
At Standing Rock, the militarized police brutalizing Water Protectors were sheriffs' deputies from numerous states, local and state police and the National Guard. The National Sheriffs' Association brought in deputies from across the nation. Its president, Greg Champagne, stood to benefit, as the end of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Bayou Bridge Pipeline, would pass through his community in Louisiana, which was reported by Desmog blog.
The persuasive legal document filed by the NPAP in the Appeals Court provides a lengthy argument concerning the violation of Standing Rock Water Protectors' Fourth Amendment right, when they were shot with munitions and water cannons. The amicus brief examines the concept of "free to leave," and the seizure of individuals by excessive force by law enforcement.
NPAP told the Federal Appeals Court:
The court below distinguished from the instant case those prior cases where protestors were herded from one location to another or encircled in a particular location. It did so on the ground that under those circumstances, there was a seizure because protestors had no egress available. Dundon, at *22. The lower court’s analysis was incorrect. It may appear more obvious that persons forced into a location with no egress have been seized. But this is nothing more than the conclusion that one is seized when one is not “free to leave.” In fact, for the reasons developed at length above, the protestors in those cases were seized when initially struck by munitions fired with the intent to restrain their ability to remain where they were. Under a proper analysis, that is when the seizure by force occurred. If they were subsequently trapped in a new location, that constituted another seizure by control.
In its summary:
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should hold that law enforcement officers seized appellants within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when they fired at and struck them with munitions for the purpose of restraining their ability to remain in their location and continue their protest. The Court should then move to analyze the reasonableness of the force employed. On that issue, amicus NPAP agrees with the argument of appellants that the force used was unreasonably excessive and in violation of appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights.
This is not the first time that the attorneys at NPAP have supported and represented peaceful protesters in court.
"Over the last two years, NPAP members have encountered a disturbing trend of law enforcement agencies using violent tactics to suppress peaceful protests, including using impact munitions and tear gas against people engaged in lawful First Amendment activity," NPAP told the Appeals Court in the Standing Rock case.
NPAP members have represented protesters injured during the summer 2020 George Floyd protests who were targeted with noxious gases, rubber bullets, 40 mm rounds, bean bags fired out of a shotgun, and other munitions, it told the court.
Currently, NPAP members have filed civil rights cases on behalf of protesters injured while protesting police brutality in over 20 cities, including Minneapolis, Minnesota and St. Louis, Missouri.
"Courts must enforce Fourth Amendment protections to stem the tide of police violence and prevent constitutional violations at future protests," NPAP told the Appeals Court, in support of the Standing Rock Water Protectors.
The National Police Accountability Project (NPAP) was founded in 1999 by members of the National Lawyers Guild to address misconduct by law enforcement officers through coordinating and assisting civil-rights lawyers.
NPAP has approximately 550 attorney members practicing in every region of the United States, including dozens of members who represent clients that have been subjected to force and restrained while engaged in protest activity.
The lead attorneys filing the amicus brief in the Standing Rock case are Michael Avery, Suffolk University Law School, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Lauren Bonds and Eliana Machefsky, with the National Police Accountability Project in New Orleans.
Article copyright Brenda Norrell, Censored News
About the author
Brenda Norrell has been a news reporter in Indian country for 40 years, beginning at the Navajo Times during the 18 years that she lived on the Navajo Nation. She was a stringer for Associated Press, USA Today and Lakota Times, covering the Navajo Nation and federal courts. After serving as a longtime staff reporter for Indian Country Today, she was censored and terminated. She created Censored News in 2006, which has 21 million page views.
The National Police Accountability Project, composed of attorneys nationwide, has filed in federal appeals court in support of Standing Rock Water Protectors. The attorneys told the court that the force used against Water Protectors was "unreasonably excessive," and violated their Fourth Amendment right, which protects people from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
"NPAP agrees with the argument of appellants that the force used was unreasonably excessive and in violation of appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights," NPAP said in its summary in the 32-page amicus brief filed in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in North Dakota on April 29, 2022.
The attorneys' organization defends peaceful protesters, including those at George Floyd protests, who have been injured by tear gas, bean bags shot out of shotguns, rubber bullets and other munitions fired by law enforcement.
The attorneys are taking a stand against police brutality and defending peaceful protesters who are subjected to force and restrained.
"Over the last two years, NPAP members have encountered a disturbing trend of law enforcement agencies using violent tactics to suppress peaceful protests, including using impact munitions and tear gas against people engaged in lawful First Amendment activity,' NPAP told the Appeals Court in the Standing Rock case.
 |
| Standing Rock 2016 |
The amicus, or friend of the court document, was filed in the Standing Rock case stating excessive force by law enforcement resulted in critical injuries for Water Protectors. They were defending the waters of the Missouri River from construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, owned by Energy Transfer Partners, 2016--2017.
.jpeg) |
| Lead Plaintiff Vanessa Dundon, Dine', was shot in the eye by law enforcement. |
The class action, civil rights lawsuit, is Vanessa Dundon et. al. vs. Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier, et. al. Standing Rock Water Protectors are appealing in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in North Dakota.
In the lower court, U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor sided with law enforcement in December. In the case, Water Protectors said temperatures dropped below freezing on the night of November 20, 2016, when they were sprayed with water and fired on with rubber bullets, tear gas and munitions.
At Standing Rock, the militarized police brutalizing Water Protectors were sheriffs' deputies from numerous states, local and state police and the National Guard. The National Sheriffs' Association brought in deputies from across the nation. Its president, Greg Champagne, stood to benefit, as the end of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Bayou Bridge Pipeline, would pass through his community in Louisiana, which was reported by Desmog blog.
Energy Transfer hired TigerSwan mercenaries and other private security which advised law enforcement. Private security agents were responsible for the attack with dogs in September of 2016. The Intercept series provides detailed accounts of law enforcement spies in the camps, and efforts to entrap Water Protectors and provoke violence.
.jpeg) |
| Sniper on a hill aims at Standing Rock Water Protectors 2016. |
The persuasive legal document filed by the NPAP in the Appeals Court provides a lengthy argument concerning the violation of Standing Rock Water Protectors' Fourth Amendment right, when they were shot with munitions and water cannons. The amicus brief examines the concept of "free to leave," and the seizure of individuals by excessive force by law enforcement.
NPAP told the Federal Appeals Court:
The court below distinguished from the instant case those prior cases where protestors were herded from one location to another or encircled in a particular location. It did so on the ground that under those circumstances, there was a seizure because protestors had no egress available. Dundon, at *22. The lower court’s analysis was incorrect. It may appear more obvious that persons forced into a location with no egress have been seized. But this is nothing more than the conclusion that one is seized when one is not “free to leave.” In fact, for the reasons developed at length above, the protestors in those cases were seized when initially struck by munitions fired with the intent to restrain their ability to remain where they were. Under a proper analysis, that is when the seizure by force occurred. If they were subsequently trapped in a new location, that constituted another seizure by control.
In its summary:
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should hold that law enforcement officers seized appellants within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when they fired at and struck them with munitions for the purpose of restraining their ability to remain in their location and continue their protest. The Court should then move to analyze the reasonableness of the force employed. On that issue, amicus NPAP agrees with the argument of appellants that the force used was unreasonably excessive and in violation of appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights.
 |
| Militarized law enforcement at Standing Rock 2016. Photo copyright Ryan Vizzions. |
This is not the first time that the attorneys at NPAP have supported and represented peaceful protesters in court.
"Over the last two years, NPAP members have encountered a disturbing trend of law enforcement agencies using violent tactics to suppress peaceful protests, including using impact munitions and tear gas against people engaged in lawful First Amendment activity," NPAP told the Appeals Court in the Standing Rock case.
NPAP members have represented protesters injured during the summer 2020 George Floyd protests who were targeted with noxious gases, rubber bullets, 40 mm rounds, bean bags fired out of a shotgun, and other munitions, it told the court.
Currently, NPAP members have filed civil rights cases on behalf of protesters injured while protesting police brutality in over 20 cities, including Minneapolis, Minnesota and St. Louis, Missouri.
"Courts must enforce Fourth Amendment protections to stem the tide of police violence and prevent constitutional violations at future protests," NPAP told the Appeals Court, in support of the Standing Rock Water Protectors.
The National Police Accountability Project (NPAP) was founded in 1999 by members of the National Lawyers Guild to address misconduct by law enforcement officers through coordinating and assisting civil-rights lawyers.
NPAP has approximately 550 attorney members practicing in every region of the United States, including dozens of members who represent clients that have been subjected to force and restrained while engaged in protest activity.
The lead attorneys filing the amicus brief in the Standing Rock case are Michael Avery, Suffolk University Law School, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Lauren Bonds and Eliana Machefsky, with the National Police Accountability Project in New Orleans.
 |
| Paiute Shoshone Journalist Myron Dewey livestreamed this Avenger missile launcher at the Navy's Fallon Bombing Range in Nevada, the day before he was killed in a head-on collision. Myron, a drone activist at Standing Rock in North Dakota, photographed another Avenger missile launcher, in a similar photo, brought in by law enforcement at Standing Rock in 2016. Myron was killed when a truck pulled into his lane and hit him head-on on an isolated dirt road near his family's home in Yomba, Nevada, on September 26, 2021. |
Read more:
View the Water Protectors lawsuit: Vanessa Dundon, et al, versus Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier, et al at:
The Intercept series "Oil and Water"
"In the Heat of Standing Rock Protests, National Sheriffs' Association Lobbied for More Gear," by Desmog Blog
National Congress of American Indians files amicus brief in support of Standing Rock Water Protectors in Appeals Court on April 29, 2022, upholding Treaties and right to free speech:
About the author
Brenda Norrell has been a news reporter in Indian country for 40 years, beginning at the Navajo Times during the 18 years that she lived on the Navajo Nation. She was a stringer for Associated Press, USA Today and Lakota Times, covering the Navajo Nation and federal courts. After serving as a longtime staff reporter for Indian Country Today, she was censored and terminated. She created Censored News in 2006, which has 21 million page views.
No comments:
Post a Comment