Negotiating with the SFPD

Wednesday, Oct 18, 2000 - Meeting with Capt. Parra of SFPD (by Mary Bull)
Jonah, Mark, Derek St. Pierre (of the Nat'l Lawyers Guild), and I met with Captain Parra for an hour yesterday, and we unanimously found him completely lacking in sincerity or good will. During the course of the meeting with him and Officer Arthur Borges, we discovered that Parra does not wish to cooperate with us or work together to resolve issues; he obviously does not find the First Amendment very compelling; and he would like us to just go away. We left disgusted and felt our time had been wasted.

COMPLAINTS & HARASSMENT. During the meeting, the police informed us that the escalation in police harassment is due to the escalation in complaints the police have been getting from Gap, Inc.

LODGING CODE. Though Derek argued very reasonably against the enforcement of lodging laws, which are aimed at people living in encampments on the street, saying that, after all, we do not live at the site, different people are there at different times, all of us have our own residences where we do live, there are no permanent or quasi-permanent structures such as tents, cardboard dwellings, shopping carts, and so on, the Captain insisted that his officers will continue to hassle protestors if they receive a complaint and the "elements of code 647 (j) are present." He explained that these elements include food and sleeping bags.

STUMP/PROPS. Derek also argued well for the right to have the stump and other props supporting the protest at the site; he proposed several compromises which addressed both the police's alleged concern for safety (they always truck that one out when they transgress the Bill of Rights: Safety versus our rights to free speech, assembly, and privacy--very big in the prisons: they can subject you to any humiliation--including strip searches-- in the name of "safety") and protection of our First Amendment rights. Again, Derek may win these arguments in court, but the police will not allow us to have the stump at the vigil site at 1 Harrison. The cops went on to say that they are not obliged to warn us before they cite us.  According to Derek, this is illegal and can also be fought in court.

PLACARDS. The police said that now that we have the placards out of the trees and off the public signs, they will not hassle us about them, but that the Dept of Public Works could complain, and then they would hassle us again.

FOOD, CLUTTER, AGRESSIVENESS W/EMPLOYEES. The police also said they had been getting complaints from Gap, Inc. about food on site, the clutter, and aggressiveness with employees--following them and getting in their face. We stated that none of us had witnessed this kind of aggression with the employees--quite the opposite: we are typically polite and informative; I reported that I personally do the housekeeping at the site daily and that it is kept tidy, neat, and clean (btw, I will be out of town for a week, so others will have to pitch in here); and as for clutter, our signs look terrific on their tripods (let's keep it that way).

ATTITUDE. Derek also made an excellent suggestion for diffusing tension between protestors and police: He suggested that the police lose the dictatorial attitude they have had when raiding the site ("Do this or else..."), and instead work WITH US to mitigate what they believe to be legitimate complaints from Gap, Inc.