45th parallel absurdist brigade

this statute states that when "a threat to the public health or safety is created by any emergency, a Portland police officer may restrict or deny access to any persons to the area where such threat exists, for the duration of such threat."

PPB is presumably citing this statute because of the court order prohibiting interference with the press. So let's see how this piece of the city code aligns with the behavior of the police in East Portland this evening

So first off: "For purposes of this Section, an emergency includes, but is not limited to an escaped prisoner, a natural disaster, a fire, an explosion, an accident, a riot, the presence of an armed person, a hostage incident or a bomb threat."

Last night, the announced explosive-object-determined-to-not-be-an-explosive appeared to be the emergency justification. Based on PPB public statements this afternoon, the crowd's alleged "intent to burn down or vandalize" the precinct apparently served as justification tonight.

"B. Whenever it appears to be reasonably necessary to investigate, or to preserve or collect evidence of criminal acts, a police officer may restrict or deny access to any area." this may indicate that access can only be restricted in order to collect evidence.

before making the declaration of the closure pursuant to city code, the PPB made this post, showing rebar caltrops with bad spot welds, and a flat tire. IANAL, but this may be with the goal of building a case that such an emergency existed.https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/1291622222356856832?s=20 …

Our reporter on the ground documented a great deal of rushing and physical force, and few arrests. However unless the PPB's own crowd control munitions are being treated as evidence, there did not appear to be any evidence gathering effort in most of the area declared closed.

Such evidence gathering would have, at any rate, been very difficult, given that police repeatedly drove through and withdrew from the area which was declared closed. It may be that the cited code and ill-defined PPB "unlawful assembly" protocol were both being used here.

Back to the code, sec. C lets police "regulate or prohibit the presence or movement of persons or vehicles to, from, and within any area, to evacuate persons and to move or remove any property therefrom, until the reason for such restriction or denial of access no longer exists."

& D "unlawful for any person to enter or to refuse to leave any area closed or restricted in access pursuant to Subsections (A) or (B) above, unless such person has specific statutory authority, or the permission of the on-scene ranking police officer, to be within such area."

Again, Not A Lawyer, but this seems to allow Police to kick anyone and anything out of an area they've closed under this code, unless they have "specific statutory authority." It's possible that PPB will argue the TRO, as a court order, confers no "statutory authority."

And, as everyone on twitter has now noticed, but the PPB may not have, section E mandates that "provision shall be made for reasonable access to such areas by members of the media for the purpose of news gathering and reporting," under certain limits.

"in consideration of the law enforcement and emergency services needs involved" is all that it says about those limits, but it does say "reasonable access" and for those of you who've ever listened to legal podcasts, "reasonable" tends to be a real can of worms.

So it would seem that the cited code could give police the authority to remove press from a specific area closed for public safety/investigation. Once outside of that area, they would be relying legally on their "unlawful assembly" protocol, which is covered by the TRO.

So, in terms of how illegal the behavior of the police was tonight, the key questions seem to be: What was the emergency, and what was the compelling reason for the exclusion of press from the area closed because of it?

Other questions might include "what was the compelling public-safety justification for macing marked members of the press, or attempting to swat recording devices out of their hands," just while we're asking questions.

If police were closing the area to conduct an investigation, how was that investigation served by repeatedly charging through crowds, knocking people to the ground, and then leaving them behind as the police line advanced?

TL;DR - The areas PPB declared closed changed repeatedly, people were pushed well beyond the declared areas, and subject to violent attacks from officers, seemingly without a compelling public safety function for the emergency which apparently existed at the East Precinct.

Also worth noting, again, that the PPB's social media activity indicates their plan of action was set no later than this afternoon, well before the planned march began. Which smells a little like Prior Restraint to me, but then, I'm not an amendment to the US Constitution.