It is no surprise to those of us who write here at FreeKeene.com that we have many readers from the Keene community and beyond that firmly disagree with various things that we advocate. If you happen to be one of the aforementioned, chances are that you’re a supporter of the state and the constitutions that define how it can behave. Hopefully, I can appeal to you through this brief article.
Two nights ago two of Free Keene’s contributors had their constitutional rights violated by government employees that they both are forced to fund. The argument of whether Ian Freeman and Sam Dodson were looking for a confrontation is irrelevant and no excuse for the behavior of government officials that was initiated by government officials. In this state and country the government is prohibited from interfering with peaceful free speech and protest. The onus is on government employees to comply with the entirety of the state and federal constitutions, at all times… even when confronted by people peacefully expressing their displeasure at the continued enforcement of a government policy.
Especially when confronted by people peacefully expressing their displeasure at the continued enforcement of a government policy.
It was well publicized here on the blog that there would be a gathering of people at the Keene City Council meeting and that those people would be drinking from containers that could have alcohol in them. From all accounts I’ve read, witnessed through video, and learned from speaking to the individuals involved, not a single disruption was caused at this particular meeting by the protesters. The disruption ensued when the government employees and officials felt that the protesters were deflating their ego’s by mocking the way they choose to wield violence to control other people’s lives.
Facts:
1. The mayor, city manager, and police chief were aware that individuals may be consuming alcohol at the particular meeting they were attending on Thursday night.
2. Once at the meeting the mayor, city manager, and police chief identified several individuals who were quietly drinking out of bottles that might contain alcohol.
3. Drinking of non-alcoholic beverages from containers that appear to contain alcohol is not against state law or Keene ordinance.
4. The police chief embarked on an investigation to determine what was within the bottles in the possession of the protesters.
5. One protester waived her Part I, Article 19 and US Amendment 4 rights and consented to a search of the contents of her bottle. The contents of the bottle revealed that she was only drinking water. She was allowed to remain.
6. Ian Freeman and Sam Dodson invoked their rights under Part I, Article 19 and US Amendment 4 and refused the police chief’s request to search in the contents of their bottle.
7. As a result of the police chief’s inability to develop probable cause that Ian and Sam were breaking the law (or not breaking the law) they were ordered to leave.
8. Ian and Sam refused to comply with the order to leave.
The culmination of #1 and #2 would give the police reasonable suspicion that anyone present with a bottle mimicking a bottle for an alcoholic beverage was violating the town’s open container ordinance. Reasonable suspicion only authorizes the police to conduct a brief detention and interrogation for the purpose of determining if probable cause exists to take enforcement action. No citation can be issued, no property seized, and no arrest can be made absent probable cause.
The police chief’s actions in #5 have a direct nexus with his enforcement action taken against Ian and Sam in #7 and #8. This clearly shows that if Ian and Sam had waived their constitutional rights that they too would have been allowed to remain present in a public meeting. The issue with this though is that it flips the entire constitutional system upside down: you must waive two constitutional rights when “asked” by the police chief if you want to enjoy a third.
The New Hampshire Constitution in Part I, Article 8 states the following:
[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.
I’d be interested if anyone can make an argument supporting the notion that the police being unable to make a case that someone is violating the law, because the police are hampered by an individual choosing to assert their constitutional rights of privacy, constitutes a “reasonable” restriction and justification on stripping Ian and Sam of their clearly codified right to be present at the public meeting.
The law Ian and Sam were charged with violating states the following:
644:2 Disorderly Conduct. – A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
II. He or she:
(b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility;
Going on the facts as we know them…Â can someone please tell me the difference in what Ian and Sam did versus the protester I mentioned in #5, OTHER than the fact that they refused to waive constitutional rights?
See where I’m going with this?
The police chief had absolutely no evidence that Ian or Sam were breaking the open container law. In fact, they were not breaking the open container law. Their invoking their rights pissed off the police chief and he retaliated by ordering them to leave. Whether or not you agree with how Ian and Sam chose to protest this victimless law… hopefully the patently unconstitutional way that the government officials in Keene conducted themselves causes you concern.
