Is There Any Legitimate Basis for Police Requiring People on Sidewalks to Keep Moving?

[snot]

[L. Coyote]

1. Yes, the sidewalks cannot move the people

silly questions deserve a snarky remark :rofl:

[MADem]

5. Actually, that's true--the whole idea is that people cannot block the passage of others.

Which is why they say that you need to "keep moving" particularly if you are involved in an unpermit-ed demonstration.

It is possible to walk in a circle and stay within the law--pickets do it all the time.

[Amonester]

2. They can always move in circles...

:sarcasm:

[ellenfl]

3. i imagine most cities have anti-loitering laws. eom

[John1956PA]

4. Here is a statutory provision from the State of Washington.

State of Washington

Title 9A Chapter 9A.84 Section 9A.84.020

RCW 9A.84.020 - Failure to disperse.

(1) A person is guilty of failure to disperse if:

(a) He or she congregates with a group of three or more other persons and there are acts of conduct within that group which create a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property; and

(b) He or she refuses or fails to disperse when ordered to do so by a peace officer or other public servant engaged in enforcing or executing the law.

(2) Failure to disperse is a misdemeanor.

<2011 c 336 § 410; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.84.020.>

[inademv]

7. Isn't that a clear violation of the 1st amendment

right to peaceful assembly? Seems to me that any infringement on that right when there isn't a clearly established level of risk to persons, directly caused by said assembly, that it should be protected under the 1st amendment.

On a side note for ordinances like this as there seem to be quite a few in almost every city these days, how are ANY of them technically legal since they appear to be in direct contradiction of the Supremacy Clause?

[jberryhill]

18. Go block access to an abortion clinic

The anti-choice people agree with you.

[inademv]

20. What?

I'm not talking about blocking anything, and most anti-abortion gatherings from what I've seen are anything but peaceful.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. That law is specifically about risk to people

It says there has to be "a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property" for it to apply.

So it's not a violation of the 1st amendment; but neither is it that relevant to the OP's question, I think. It doesn't cover blocking someone's progress, or staying still in general.

[inademv]

22. But there isn't "a substantial risk"

at any of the incidents where the occupy protestors have been brutalized by police.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Yes, I know; that's why I don't think that law is relevant to the OP

I was just answering your worry that the law was a violation of the 1st amendment.

[inademv]

24. But I'm saying that can't be the law being applied

since there is no risk and in most cases there isn't an obstruction.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. It can't be applied in the case of people just standing or sitting on sidewalks

We agree on that. I thought the way you worded reply #7 meant you were saying the law itself was unconstitutional. Maybe you weren't saying that, after all - just that an attempt to use that law for people who stand or sit on sidewalks would be 'unconstitutional' (though I thought the adjective 'unconstitutional' was normally used for laws, rather than a theoretical attempt to improperly apply the law), in which case we agree completely.

[inademv]

28. Well I would argue that some of the more vague laws

such as those in California regarding people in public places are technically unconstitutional. But yes, in regards specifically to the ones listed in the OP my argument was more that those aren't valid because the conditions required for them to be applicable are not present where the police are abusing their pepper spray.

[jberryhill]

25. If you have a bunch of people standing on a sidewalk...

Then you are blocking access to whatever that sidewalk leads to.

That is illegal specifically if it is an abortion clinic, and specifically if people are on that sidewalk to express their opinion of it.

[MineralMan]

6. Most cities have ordinances prohibiting blocking walkways.

So, a group that is preventing other pedestrians from moving along the walkway can usually be charged with a misdemeanor. Of course, permitted events, like parades, street festivals, and the like can override that.

There's always some law they can use to get you to go somewhere else, if they want to.

[Courtesy Flush]

27. Selectively enforced (pic)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. Because they can.

Not a snarky answer, just because there is no other reason.

[FarCenter]

9. Sidewalks are not sidestands

[Obamanaut]

10. Isn't it true that when folks are on strike, carrying picket signs etc., they

must keep moving.?

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Unless the sign says 'God Hates Fags' then they have the right

to be anywhere, no matter how disruptive and endangering to the public they might be.

[Obamanaut]

13. What about the 'keep moving' part of the question? Isn't it true that

striking picketers and supporters - with or without signs, and without regard to what is on the signs - must keep moving? If so, that goes to answer part of the question in the OP, doesn't it?

Strikers, protesters, anyone - maintain some movement?

[Robb]

14. Yes. We *walk* the picket line for just this reason. (nt)

[Obamanaut]

17. Thanks. nt

[doublethink]

12. Its' part of the "Nothing To See Here, Move Along" law.

[OtherSideTeam]

15. Yes, but there a legitimate bases for lots of things.

[EC]

16. They call it loitering.

Many cities have laws against loitering. They were passed to keep people from hanging on street corners as they have always done forever...

[snot]

19. I get that we shouldn't block the sidewalk; that infringes others' freedom. But

if we're not blocking anyone, just standing with room for others to get around us without particular danger or inconvenience, I don't see why standing should be prohibited.

In fact, it seems ridiculous.