Chicago Iraq War Protester Settlement: City Giving $6.2 Million To Arrested Anti-War Protesters

After nearly nine years of litigation, lawyers for the city of Chicago on Thursday agreed to settle a lawsuit brought on by anti-war protesters for $6.2 million.

More than 800 plaintiffs were part of the class action suit against the city, which claimed that hundreds of people were arrested without being told by police to disperse during a protest against the Iraq war in 2003. Last year, federal appellate Justice Richard Posner ruled that police did not have the right to arrest peaceful protesters "merely because they do not have a permit," the People's Law Office said in a statement.

As the Chicago Tribune reports, Posner's ruling was bad news for the city:

The city's defense in the case was weakened last year when federal appellate Justice Richard Posner ruled the arrests were unjustified because police allowed the massive demonstration to take place without a permit, but then decided to arrest people for participating without giving them a clear order that it was time to disperse.

Hundreds of people became trapped by police at Chicago and Michigan avenues. Confused demonstrators who said they just wanted to go home were instead arrested and held overnight. All of the arrest charges were later dismissed in court, Posner noted.

The settlement comes as protesters gear up for a fight with the city over the upcoming NATO and G8 summits. Some activists claim that new protest rules Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel put in place with stifle their rights to free speech.

"I hope it sends a message that they need to treat us like citizens and not combatants," Cheryl Angelaccio, one of the protestors arrested in the Iraq War protest, told ABC Chicago.

Lawyers for the protesters told ABC that the settlement sends a message that police must allow people to exercise their constitutional rights.

"This case is important not only to the class members and their attorneys, but also for civil liberties, as it scores a significant victory for the right to demonstrate in Chicago," the Chicago Coalition Against War & Racism said in a statement. "This substantial settlement will send an unequivocal message to the City of Chicago and its police department that they must respect the right to free speech and assembly."

Those who were arrested, charged and detained could get up to $15,000 from the settlement.

The city has already paid more than $300,000 to people who sued for police brutality on the night of the 2003 protest, CCAWR reports.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Robbin Papalucas]

10:27 PM on 02/22/2012

why is nobody looking into this rahm emmanuel background? According to chicago law one must be living full time in residence for at least one year or longer prior to entering the race for mayor, so why did he get on the ballot for he did not meet the qualifications of such residency requirements? He was living and working in washington dc in the white house for that full year prior to this election which makes him totality disqualified from the onset. How did his name get on the ballot in the first place? lets hear the truth about how he really got on the ballot.

[KarlaElisa]

01:52 PM on 02/11/2012

what happened here? there's a judge in chicago rahm can't get into his pocket?

[bruceabeal]

08:21 PM on 02/10/2012

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1559740.html

[cowbore]

05:08 PM on 02/10/2012

So no one really gets punished for this police mis-use of power. The city paying this settlement come out of the taxes paid by citizens and even the protesters themselves. So these officials can do what they want and basically kick the can down the road for many years with no repercussions. The only way to remedy this is to arrest and press charges against these police and officials or sue them individually in civil court.

[Soft and Gentle]

02:27 PM on 02/10/2012

Pay them Chicago!!!!! This City really can produce them, just raise taxes.....no problem

[tissa]

01:47 PM on 02/11/2012

What are you even talking about? Like the city can't handle a 6 milllion dollar bill?

Raise WHAT taxes?  We don't have a city tax.

We have property taxes but that is controlled by cook county, not chicago

[fb723]

03:01 PM on 02/11/2012

But they have one of the highest if not the highest sales tax in the country which benifits the well to do.

http://archive.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/08/chicago-leads-nation-in-sales-tax.html

[jankantius]

02:16 PM on 02/10/2012

Michelle wants Iraq to reemburse us for having invaded them? Sounds very Roman Empire to me, invade and enslave. Keep in mind the repercussions of the Treaty of Versailles.. The allies maltreatment of a defeated Germany led directly to the rise of the Nazis. We appear very adept at creating enemies.

[kayyy]

12:20 PM on 02/10/2012

60002000.0 divided by 800 = 7500.25 dollars. Wow I hope that 's enough to cover the legal costs, the original bail, the new income taxes on this other kind of income, and so much more.

I'm not even sure that it created clear parameters for future protests. What is now the legal way to protest? Will their backgrounds be cleared after this or will they always be "persons of interest" barred from certain areas of work and education?

I'm just not sure it was worth it. No significant change, no real money, and no end to the war action.

[ellisclevenger]

01:38 PM on 02/10/2012

The "clear" parameters for protesting are---Permit-Pay for the permit. Abide by the conditions of the permit, such as start and end hours of protest, and physical boundries set within the permit. Above all, do not commit an illegal act, such as harrassment, arson, or pillforage. No Permit-Assemble, protest, leave when ordered to disperse by a constituted authority, usually law enforcement. Again, do not commit an illegal act, such as described above. The suit was based upon the premise that law enforcement did not order the dispersal of the protesters, before the arrests were made. Therefore, violationg their rights under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Was it "worth it"? I think it was. Remember, no significant change will take place without "small" occurrences. In my book, the was a Constutional "occurrence".

[Julie Baker Morse]

08:25 PM on 02/10/2012

It's not really as simple as that. Requiring a permit to protest at all would tend to unreasonably restrict First Amendment rights. "Congress shall make NO LAW...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...". Courts have consistently ruled that the 14th Amendment causes the First Amendment to be applied to states and localities as well. A permit requirement would therefore be unconstitutional, as it's a law that restricts peaceable assembly.

This ruling states that police cannot arrest protesters for merely protesting without a permit. But I submit that police also cannot lawfully require a peaceable assembly to disperse if they're not breaking any laws [other than the aforementioned permit requirement]. If they attempt to give a dispersal order without a lawful reason, they're intentionally interfering with protesters' First Amendment rights, making any such order unlawful, and one that does not legally have to be obeyed.

[Soft and Gentle]

02:26 PM on 02/10/2012

Lawyers will get a third plus expences,

[fb723]

12:04 PM on 02/10/2012

All it's going to do is get their city and state taxes raised. The politicans and their cronnies still want their pound of flesh,so up goes your taxes.

[StuffMoreStuff]

02:10 PM on 02/10/2012

EXACTLY.

[tissa]

01:51 PM on 02/11/2012

(1) We don't have city taxes.  Unlike republican states like Ohio, in which the individual cities TAX their residents on top of state and federal taxes.

(2) State taxes are controlled by the state, not the city.

(2) Property taxes are controlled by Cook County.

You have no point.

[fb723]

02:44 PM on 02/11/2012

I live in NYC (Dem state and city) and they tax the $h*t out of us. The Political party doesn't matter. That's what they want us to believe. So they can give away OUR tax $$$$ to their friends, so when they have to pay out for being sued, it will cost the taxpayer down the road.

[fb723]

02:53 PM on 02/11/2012

Are you sure you don't a city Income Tax. "A fool and their money"

http://chicagoinspectorgeneral.org/major-initiatives/budget-options/2011-budget-options-online-version/revenue-options/income-taxes-create-a-city-income-tax/

[KevinOConnor]

11:37 AM on 02/10/2012

This is how voodoo economics works right? It's only been about 10 years.

[clpblank]

12:03 PM on 02/10/2012

More along the lines of " Trickle Down Economics".

[too young but old enough]

01:53 PM on 02/10/2012

According to a famous quote by George H.W. Bush, "trickle down economics" is "voodoo economics". Did you learn nothing from Ferris Bueller's Day Off?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPVyieptwA

[lovebeingme]

11:30 AM on 02/10/2012

This is the 17th million dollar suit won by victims of police brutality that I've read about this week. Not just in Chicago; they were in various states. What does this tell you about the police in this country? smh

[kayyy]

12:22 PM on 02/10/2012

Is there a source to find this list of suits? Is there a 'police blogger' on the police?

[lovebeingme]

04:28 PM on 02/10/2012

I read them on the Internet. And I apologize about my typo. I meant to say 7 - not 17. There were some in Chicago, NY, Minnesota and New Orleans. Those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

[curare1081]

11:29 AM on 02/10/2012

excuse me but cops and politicans should pay this out of their pocket. they violated the law, they hurt people illegally, there is no way public funds should pay for this. dock every cop in the force 2 weeks salary to pay for this and fire thsoe responsible. set some precedents that you and the entire force will be personally responsible if you allow this to happen.

[ProudMarineMom]

11:53 AM on 02/10/2012

agreed!!! Freedom of speech in a peaceful manor should never ever ever be taken away. Please remember that when the Tea Party or GOP wants to protest.

[rcapitalsim]

11:58 AM on 02/10/2012

good point curar....very good point.

[Frog of War]

11:23 AM on 02/10/2012

Looks like their gearing up for the G-8 summit. Many of these so called protest groups live for this. They come in and protest and then sue the heck out of the host city afterwards for alleged and perceived transgressions. There's no reason to cheer for this sort of behavior. It has nothing to do with free speech, right to assemble, etc. It's about the agendas of a small minority of people who do nothing but protest and create anarchy. This is their version of "warfare" they call "lawfare". These folks are very well organized and harbor agendas few of us would agree with or support - left, right, or center ....

[wolvespj]

12:46 PM on 02/10/2012

well stated.

[ellisclevenger]

01:11 PM on 02/10/2012

No, I may not agree with some protests. However, I do agree with the people's right to protest. A right, I might add, that we have under the Constitution. Most lawsuits, not all, filed after a protest are usually based on the Constitution's 1st amendment, as this one was. Exactly when is a violation of the Constitution an "alleged and perceived transgression?"

[Frog of War]

02:09 PM on 02/10/2012

Can't disagree with your take. But I recently saw a story on the upcoming G-8/NATO protests slated for Chicago and the protest organizers openly discussed their plan to use our legal system - not to protest violations of their rights - but to inflict added costs on the City or State to make them hurt financially. Their real agenda was the right to assemble or protest but to cripple the system in order to collapse the meetings and render an effect akin to anarchy.

[Ralph Boyd]

11:19 AM on 02/10/2012

Note to self: Should be protesting since my 401K tanked.

[oceanview136]

11:12 AM on 02/10/2012

By the time the lawyers take their fee, we are not talking about much money individually !

[kayyy]

12:25 PM on 02/10/2012

The first thing I did was whip out my calculator. Then I (kayyy) posted it for others to see.

[ellisclevenger]

01:01 PM on 02/10/2012

No we're not. Especially considering the Federal taxes, and state taxes, still to be collected.

[Dixiwrecked]

11:11 AM on 02/10/2012

Finally.. One against the Jackboot Pigs that carry out the orders of the bankers and elite instead of protecting the RIGHTS of peaceful American Citizens.. Finally!!

[kayyy]

12:33 PM on 02/10/2012

Name calling? Really? How churlish

[Dixiwrecked]

01:09 PM on 02/10/2012

Jackboot Pigs is a category..

[wolvespj]

12:45 PM on 02/10/2012

Yep you got it after all you know the entire story. Would be nice to know what really happened.