Credit: (Taylor Jung/NJ Spotlight News)The legal battle between the City of Paterson and two prominent leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement is likely headed to trial, with the case ostensibly hinging on whether police violated the activists’ right to protest when they were arrested in 2019.
The case also comes at a sensitive time when police and activists protesting against them are increasingly settling their disputes in court, sometimes for many millions of dollars.
The plaintiffs, Zellie Thomas and Walter “Hawk” Newsome, were arrested for obstructing traffic in January 2019 at a protest following the killing by Paterson police of Jameek Lowery. The two did not organize the protest, but claimed they were arrested because of their leadership positions in Black Lives Matter groups. Newsome is a co-founder of the movement’s New York chapter, and Thomas is a leader of the Paterson chapter.
Both were acquitted of all charges in December 2020.
Thomas and Newsome are seeking the city be found in violation of their constitutional rights to free speech and protest, as well as compensation for their lawyer fees and other damages.
On Aug. 15, a Passaic County Superior Court judge denied the city’s motion of summary judgment, moving the case to trial unless the two sides agree to a settlement.
The lawsuit comes amid the state attorney general’s takeover of Paterson’s police department, which has been under fire for alleged police brutality and misconduct, falsifying records and mismanaging staff.
Other BLM lawsuits
Within the last month, Denver and New York City settled lawsuits with people involved in Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, for $4.7 million and $13 million, respectively.
Black Lives Matter advocates nationwide have questioned whether police stifle protests that are critical of their actions. Thomas and Newsome’s lawsuit homes in on this issue in court filings.
“(The lawsuit) represents the need to protect the rights of people who are trying to hold their governments accountable… If we fail to protect people, then it not only violates their right to free speech, but it leaves us wanting for a way to truly hold police accountable,” said Alexander Shalom, senior supervising attorney at ACLU New Jersey, who is representing Newsome and Thomas.
At the center of the lawsuit by Newsome and Thomas is whether they obstructed traffic and had been notified they were not allowed to protest in the street. Craig Dashiell, an attorney from law firm Lowenstein Sandler also representing the plaintiffs, said that New Jersey laws essentially balance the right to protest with making sure traffic isn’t blocked.
“And our position is that protesting in streets is a fundamental right. Our clients were exercising that right peacefully, they weren’t harassing anyone, they weren’t trying to interfere with cars,” Dashiell said.
Right to protest
Video of the protest, recorded by Thomas, shows about an hour’s worth of speeches in front of Paterson City Hall on Jan. 11, 2019. Protestors then marched, spilling out into the street. Within two minutes, police motorcycles blocked them. Newsome and Thomas were subsequently arrested; no one else was arrested.
On Paterson’s side, police reports show that one of the defendants, Lt. Sharon Easton, called Thomas the day before the protest, at the request of Deputy Chief Herbierto Rodriguez, to let him know that they’d be setting up barricades for the protest.
Easton’s report states, “I believe Mr. Thomas understood that the attendees of the rally were not to go into the street.” Officers were also briefed before the protest and were told that the protestors were notified they couldn’t be on the street.
Thomas’s lawyers said in court filings the protesters weren’t told they would be arrested if they went into the street, and that the law states police have to give warning to protestors. Dashiell said that it’s one thing if police had asked someone to move from the street and they didn’t listen to their order.
“You don’t just come in and arrest them in the first instance. And so we’re saying … [Thomas and Newsome] weren’t obstructing. They weren’t asked to move. Had they been asked to move they would have complied with that order,” he said.
Although Newsome and Thomas were later acquitted of the charges, the City of Paterson says in court filings that police “had probable cause” to believe that the protestors were violating traffic by walking in the street. “Taken objectively, there is an abundance of undisputed, unambiguous, and admissible evidence proving that the officers had probable cause to believe Plaintiffs purposely obstructed Market Street without any legal privilege to do so,” according to Paterson’s unsuccessful motion for the summary judgment.
The City of Paterson did not respond to requests for further comment on the lawsuit.
