Judge Denies FBI Dismissal From Berkeley Raid Lawsuit

Podcast »


Daily Cal Podcast Player

Analysis: Long Haul Infoshop

Reporter Tomer Ovadia talks with reporter Michael Garcia about the latest development in the Long Haul Infoshop case.


Related Articles »





  • Printer Friendly Printer Friendly
  • Comments Comments (0)

A federal judge denied a motion Monday to dismiss the FBI from a lawsuit filed by two Berkeley community organizations whose computers and storage devices were seized in an August 2008 raid.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled that plaintiffs Long Haul Inc. and East Bay Prisoner Support can sue the investigative bureau for its role in the raid, which was conducted by the bureau's Joint Terrorism Task Force in coordination with UCPD and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office.

"Having considered the parties' pleadings and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby grants in part and denies (the federal defendants') motion to dismiss," White wrote in the ruling.

On Aug. 27, 2008, officers raided the Long Haul Infoshop, located at 3124 Shattuck Ave., as part of an investigation into a series of threatening e-mails that were allegedly sent to nine UC Berkeley faculty members from the shop.

The University of California, which is also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit due to UCPD's involvement, did not seek a dismissal from the case.

The shop operated an unmonitored computer space open to the public, as well as private offices used to publish Long Haul's Slingshot newspaper. East Bay Prisoner Support, a prisoner rights group unaffiliated with Long Haul, maintained an office on the first floor of the building.

During the raid, officers removed all computers from the building, including those located in the locked Slingshot and East Bay Prison Support offices, according to the documents.

In a complaint filed on Jan. 14, the plaintiffs alleged that the FBI and two agents working for the bureau violated the groups' First Amendment U.S. Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and Fourth Amendment rights protecting unreasonable search and seizure.

Additionally, the groups alleged that the seizure of the computers and storage media violated the federal Privacy Protection Act, which grants extra protection from seizures to individuals using equipment to publish newspapers.

However, White also ruled that while the complaint lacked the support needed to show the First Amendment was violated, the plaintiffs could amend their original complaint to include such support.

White added that the plaintiffs need to claim that the defendants conducted the raid because of the plaintiffs' political views in order for the allegation to stand.

"On the First Amendment, (White) said we could state a claim if we could show that the raid was motivated by Long Haul's political views," said Michael Risher, a staff attorney for American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which is helping represent the plaintiffs.

However, White ruled the plaintiffs could sue for alleged Fourth Amendment and Privacy Protection Act violations, agreeing that the two-month delay between the discovery of the threatening e-mails and the raid undermined the defendants' argument of a necessary immediate seizure.

Risher said as long as one of the amendments has been violated, his case will still be strong.

"The judge said that if what we said happened really did happen, it violated the constitution," he said. "And that's really the heart of our case."

Both sides of the case will meet and request information from each other to be used in an eventual trial, according to Risher.

"I think (White's ruling) is very positive," Risher said. "Our case is going forward ... and as in all litigation we will find out what exactly the facts are. We think in the end the court will rule that the government violated the U.S. Constitution and the federal Privacy Protection Act."

Tags: LONG HAUL INFOSHOP


Contact Michael Garcia at [email protected]



Comments (0) »

Comment Policy
The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regards to both the readers and writers of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. Click here to read the full comment policy.
White space
Left Arrow
Courts
Image Co-Op Community Discusses Drug Policies
Amid concerns about drug use in the Berkeley Student Cooperative and the im...Read More»
Courts
Image 'The Play' Photographer Sues For Copyright Infring...
Four seconds of clock time, five laterals and 55 yards after...Read More»
Courts
Image Trial Begins for Feb. 26 Protesters
The hearing for two protesters arrested during a Feb. 26 riot on Southside ...Read More»
Courts
Image Southside Resident Seeks Settlement With Two Frate...
Tensions between UC Berkeley fraternities and residents of...Read More»
Courts
Image Jury Convicts Mehserle of Involuntary Manslaughter
OAKLAND - Following the verdict convicting former BART police Off...Read More»
Courts
Image Blog Entry Introduced as Character Evidence in Fat...
OAKLAND-As the case for the 2008 fatal stabbing o...Read More»
Right Arrow




Job Postings

White Space