$700,000 Awarded to Seattle Protesters in Chalk Graffiti Civil Rights Case

Seattle, WA — Four activists, detained after writing messages criticizing law enforcement on a barricade near a Seattle police station, have been awarded close to $700,000 as a jury found that their civil rights were breached. The award follows their arrest on New Year’s Day, 2021, in the aftermath of the widespread protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd.

The jury determined that the arrest of Derek Tucson, Robin Snyder, Monsieree De Castro, and Erik Moya-Delgado was driven by retaliatory motives against their Black Lives Matter advocacy, violating their First Amendment rights. Each protester received $20,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages late Friday.

Represented in a federal lawsuit against Seattle and involved officers Ryan Kennard, Dylan Nelson, Alexander Patton, and Michele Letizia, the plaintiffs’ rights to free expression were a pivotal issue. Their attorney, Nathaniel Flack, emphasized that animosity toward the protesters’ message was a determining factor in their arrest and subsequent detention.

The controversy began when the group used chalk and charcoal to inscribe phrases like “Peaceful Protest” and “Free Them All” on a barrier near the East Precinct of the Seattle Police Department. Despite the ephemeral nature of their medium, body cam footage revealed an escalated police response resulting in their arrest under the city’s anti-graffiti laws.

Their confinement was brief, lasting only a night, and no formal prosecution ensued. However, the incident raised questions about the selective enforcement of local ordinances, particularly around protests. Evidence presented during the trial showed a comparative leniency in similar cases, including an instance where police officers used sidewalk chalk at a different city event.

The discrepancy in enforcement, especially during a COVID-19 outbreak, suggested that usual protocols were adjusted for those involved in protests. Flack’s argument highlighted a so-called “protester exception,” insinuating that arrest decisions were based on the content and viewpoint of the expression—a practice the jury found to be known and endorsed at city leadership levels.

The case sheds light on broader practices of civil rights violations and serves as a caution to law enforcement agencies. Through the substantial punitive damages granted, the jury’s verdict sends a stark warning about the consequences of infringing on constitutional rights, especially those protecting free speech.

Ultimately, this legal victory not only underlines the boundaries of lawful police conduct but also reinforces the integral American value of free expression, even against governmental authority. The ruling resonates as a lesson in the importance of upholding civil liberties amidst rising national debates around police practices and protest rights.