NYCLU Calls on New Paltz to Drop Charges Against Occupy Protesters

The New York Civil Liberties Union has called on the Village of New Paltz to drop trespassing charges against four Occupy New Paltz protesters who were arrested at Hasbrouck Park after the Village Board of Trustees and Mayor Jason West imposed a series of conflicting, unwritten and unconstitutional requirements on them.

Those requirements ultimately led to the protesters’ arrests after Mayor West purported to revoke permission that the board had given them to encamp in the public park 24 hours a day.

“Prosecuting these peaceful protesters shows a serious disregard for the right to free expression,” said Daniel Berger, director of the NYCLU’s Lower Hudson Valley Chapter. “Village officials admirably accommodated free speech in the past, and we are hopeful they will once again show their commitment to the First Amendment by dismissing these charges and working out an agreement with the demonstrators that respects their constitutional rights.”

On Dec. 14, the Village Board of Trustees unanimously granted the demonstrators permission to remain in the park around the clock. On Jan. 25, the board voted to “request” that the demonstrators apply for a written permit by a Feb. 3, but also stated that an extension would be granted if needed. The demonstrators were willing to comply with the request, but the group could not afford to purchase the $1 million in liability insurance needed to complete the permit application. On Feb. 8, Occupy New Paltz members requested an exemption to the insurance requirement, as the village’s park-use policies allow. Mayor Jason West refused the request and effectively revoked the board’s permission that had allowed the protestors to camp in the park. The four protesters were arrested in the park at about midnight on Feb. 10.

In a July 16 letter to Village Attorney Joe Eriole, the NYCLU asserts that the trespassing charges must be dismissed for two reasons. First, the village’s actions – granting Occupy New Paltz permission and then rescinding it; telling protesters they could have an extension to submit a written permit application and then imposing a hard deadline – caused confusion for Occupy members wishing to apply for a permit in good faith. Second, the requirement to obtain $1 million in liability insurance to receive a written permit directly conflicts with the village’s own park-use policies permitting such an exemption, and also case law holding that such requirements violate the First Amendment when applied to indigent groups.

“These criminal charges are premised on the protesters’ alleged failure to comply with the village’s ad hoc, contradictory and unconstitutional requirements, which prevented them from obtaining a written permit,” NYCLU Occupy Wall Street Coordinator Katherine Bromberg said. “The village should not compound these mistakes by pressing forward with the criminal prosecution of protestors who were understandably confused by the village’s conflicting instructions. The village can and should demonstrate its commitment to First Amendment rights by dismissing these charges.”