Recordpub.com - Kent ordered to pay $130,000 for arrests Lawsuit stems from detained protesters in May 4, 2003 demonstration

By Dave O'Brien

Record-Courier staff writer

The City of Kent has been ordered by to pay $130,000 to 11 people arrested May 4, 2003 during a protest against the Iraq War, based on a federal court's decision that the city violated protesters' rights.

A lawsuit filed on behalf of the protesters by Akron attorneys Bill Whitaker, his daughter Andrea Whitaker and Kent attorney Nancy Grim alleged the city and the Kent Police Department targeted leaders of the anti-war demonstration without regard to whether they violated any laws or city ordinances.

U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko, sitting in U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio in Cleveland, agreed saying no probable cause existed to make the arrests.

Kent city officials confirmed the court-ordered settlement amount of $130,000 but declined further comment. Arizona-based Scottsdale Insurance Company represented the city in the case, but an agent with the firm would not release details of the settlement. It is unclear if the city will appeal the ruling.

On May 4, 2003, hundreds of protestors left Manchester Field at Kent State University and began a march toward East Main Street. Once there, they were ordered to disperse by dozens of police officers who lined the street. Approximately 12 people were then arrested for disorderly conduct after refusing to disperse and marching on a public roadway. Though the protesters also were involved in the annual commemmoration of the May 4, 1970 deaths of four Kent State University students, none were KSU students at the time of their arrests.

Grim said two lawsuits were joined in U.S. District Court -- one filed by Whitaker May 4, 2004 on behalf of Mike Pacifico of Kent and Arthur McKoy of Cleveland and another filed by Grim on behalf of Linda Beeler, Daniel Bell, Don Bryant, Oren Casdi, Brian Fry, Troy Gregorino, Roger Hill, Damon Krane and Quinn O'Malley, all of whom were arrested May 4, 2003.

"(The police) arrested based on their perception that people were leaders, and people who were outspoken and protesting war were the people who got arrested," Grim said.

The disorderly conduct charges against a number of the plaintiffs in the civil suit eventually were dismissed, Grim said. The monetary award, she said, combines compensation, attorney fees, court costs and will result in a payment of approximately $6,000 to each individual plaintiff.

"I certainly hope the city of Kent gives some thought and is more careful in how they react to political gatherings in the future. This was a gross overreaction in 2003," Grim said.

"Kent law enforcement exercised a disheartening abuse of power, particularly for a city remembered as a site of egregious suppression of political demonstration. We are pleased with the outcome of this important lawsuit. We hope the Kent Police Department has learned that the First Amendment does not permit it to arrest people for engaging in legal dissent," plaintiff Troy Gregorino said in a statement released by Bill Whitaker.

Staff writer Matt Fredmonsky contributed to this story.

9.	Posted by Liberal_Exposer August 29, 2007
	In the above article, it says that the protestors were ordered by the police to disperse, 12 of them refused to do so and were subsequently arrested. It seems to me that they violated a direct police order. Most rational, law abiding citizens who aren't trying to pick a fight with the authorities, would obey a police order without question-whether they felt it was justified or not; especially if the police are dressed in riot gear. In my judgement, these protestors were most likely trying to get arrested, billy-clubbed, or whatever so that they could file future law suits. I also find it interesting that one of those arrested, Arthur McKoy, is a well known East Cleveland community activist, and is heavily involved in the "Black on Black Crime" group. By his own admission, McCoy has no job and protesting is what he life consists of. McCoy also spent time in prison a number of years ago for fraud in a financial scheme. What was McCoy doing in Kent that night?So what do you think this dirty dozen's real intentions were?? I hope the City appeals the ruling.

8.	Posted by averagejoe August 29, 2007
	ppatti - sorry, you are right, it was 1970. Short synopsis: Pres Nixon was escalating the war in SE Asia. He wanted to send troops to Cambodia. This made alot of people angry because Nixon had promised the war would end. That was one of his campaign promises. The students decided to protest. It started out as a peaceful protest then groups of people that weren't students came and started causing trouble. The problems grew from the campus to downtown. They were going through downtown breaking business windows, burning and turning over cars. Looting the stores. I believe they burned down the ROTC building or one of the buildings in that area. The violence esclated and havoc brokeout. It was so bad that the local police departments and other gov agencies couldn't control them. The mayor declared a state of emergency and the Governor had to call in the National Guard to stop the violence. There are many theories as to what happened next. I can remember being in the 7th grade listening to the radio and watching the army vehicles pass our school. The terror from the war building in Vietnam and SE Asia was bad enough, now our own people were turning on themselves. It wsa so horrible we got sent home from school. This is what I remember. There are alot of books written on the subject as to what actually happened right before and after the shooting. Read a few of them and on this subject of history believe what you wish. I don't think anyone really knows for sure what happened. They still today are investigating it and coming up with theories. I think it was just so intense, something tragic was bound to happen.

6.	Posted by auburn smith August 29, 2007
	Let me add some additional flavor. Kent City officials have not not said if the City is responsible for paying the $130,000 settlement or if it is covered full or partially by insurance. It would be to the City's advantage to tell the taxpayers that it is covered, if it is. The City's silence can only lead one believe that taxpayers - once again - are left with a fiscal mess. Let's add $130,000 to the $125,000 that the City left at the table by not filing with the State to get an additional $5 per license fee - a recommendation of David Ruller's handpicked Blue Ribbon panel. Because of oversight or incompetence that $125,000 is gone for at least a year. That would buy a squad car or pay a couple of employees' salaries. But sorry - we missed it! Now let's add the $365,000 unbudgeted purchase of the Kent Hardware Building because the owner "wanted out." Totaled up, we are talking about $600,000+ in City funds when the City is claiming it is going broke. Wait for the general tax hike. No one in the administration is going to be content hiking on the taxes of those of us who have to work out of town (by reducing the income tax credit). Voters have long memories!