As Tensions Mount in Shasta County, Sheriff’s Deputies Arrest Peaceful Protestor Amidst Discussion on Election Funds
A decision by Shasta County Board Chair Kevin Crye to hold a discussion about emails related to election funds two days after a major election, led to chaos.
A decision by Shasta County Supervisors to discuss year-old communications about election-related grant funds ended in chaos Thursday night, November 7.
The Board’s discussion was held just two days after Shasta County’s election process drew scrutiny from national media and the California Secretary of State over concerns that observers might become aggressive.
On Thursday, tensions rose in the room as several supervisors and community members expressed distrust in both the organization that provided the elections grant funding and in the elections process generally. When Supervisor Tim Garman suggested to other Board members that they should drop the discussion given how hard elections staff are working, a community member and elections observer shrieked back at him from the crowd, “that’s because you’re corrupt as well!”
Crye responded by tapping his mallet on the table before acknowledging his awareness that the timing of the discussion – two days after a presidential election – could be contributing to the high level of tension in the room.
He then called for “mass accountability” of County staff, saying emails that the public has not yet had access to make it “obvious they broke policy.” Only one current County employee was mentioned during the discussion – Assistant Registrar of Voters Joanna Francescut, a long-term staffer who is helping to run the current election as second-in-command to the County’s newly-appointed Registrar of Voters, Tom Toller.
When Jones persisted with accusations about email communications with Francescut and others more than a year ago, community member Jenny O’Connell Nowain rose to her feet and strode to the front of the room holding a sign that read “Patrick Jones Resign!”
“I’m not going to listen to this anymore,” O’Connell Nowain said, pointing her finger at Jones. After being asked by Crye to sit down, she did so, settling herself in the middle of the Board chamber, not far from Jones’ seat, where she was joined by her husband Benjamin Nowain.
In response, Board Chair Kevin Crye called a recess, then issued a command for the public to clear the chamber. Benjamion Nowain stayed for some time before leaving, after which only the press and O’Connell Nowain remained.
The lights were turned off and after about half an hour Sheriff’s deputies arrived and pushed media from the room on threat of arrest before handcuffing O’Connell Nowain as she sat alone in the Board chamber. She was booked into jail on Penal Code 403, Disturbing a Public Meeting, and released within a few hours.
When the meeting resumed, the Board continued to discuss the grant communications, eventually voting to bring the item back for further discussion. As discussions resumed, nine men filed in and stood side-by-side in the back of the room, where they remained through the rest of the open session meeting. The group included Ian Smart, Jesse Lane and Carlos Zapata, all of whom have previously expressed willingness to use civilian force in order to “keep the peace” and “protect First Amendment rights”.
After the meeting, Shasta Scout spoke to Smart briefly, asking if he and others were there to provide security given the recent disruption.
“No,” Smart said, “We just thought it would be a good time to check out a Board of Supervisors meeting.”
Leslie Sawyer, the local chair of Moms for Liberty, was standing not far away. She thanked one of the other men for coming, saying, “even though you got here after it was all over, we’re glad you showed up.”
Michael Kamfolt another man with the group, has visited the Elections Office with Supervisor Crye several times over the last week. During a brief interview with Shasta Scout on Monday, November 4, Kamfolt said he wanted to make sure the election process was going right as part of his dedication to protecting his family and land in Shasta County.
The Press and Public’s Rights Under First Amendment Law
The Sheriff’s Office has released a statement claiming the decision to clear three members of the press from the room prior to arresting O’Connell Nowain was necessary for “safety”. Sheriff Michael Johnson has not responded to Shasta Scout’s request for comment yesterday asking what safety issues necessitated removing the press.
The Sheriff’s press release also warned that more individuals “who failed to obey lawful orders to exit the chambers” yesterday may face charges. Those who remained in the room following the original command to clear the chamber included Benjamin Nowain and journalists with Shasta Scout, Record Searchlight, and A News Cafe. All eventually left the chamber in response to police commands to do so.
David Loy, the Legal Director for the First Amendment Coalition, told Shasta Scout he finds it “very troubling” that both the press and the public were ordered to leave the room during the meeting, thereby “depriving them of their right to observe and document an act of civil disobedience.”
“Whether under the Brown Act or First Amendment,” Loy explained, “the press and public have the general right of access to the meeting room as long as the meeting has not been adjourned. And the press and public have the right to document.”
Asked whether a threat to safety might be a reason to clear press from the room, Loy said yes, but only under appropriate circumstances.
“There has to be an actual imminent threat grounded in fact to justify clearing the room,” he explained, “and they can only clear the room if the problem can’t be solved by removing a specific individual who might be causing the problem.”
“The government . . . can’t just wave the word safety as an all-purpose justification”, Loy continued. “It has to be based on facts, not vague assertions or speculation.”
Elections Office Counting Votes Amidst Tense Climate
Over recent weeks, the Shasta County Elections Office has been the subject of close scrutiny from a small group of community members, many of whom show up daily to monitor election procedures. Toller announced earlier this week that his staff’s concerns about “aggressive observership” had led him to ask California’s Department of Justice to step in to help oversee the election process in Shasta.
While things have remained calm at the Elections Office this week, many of these same observers spoke out during the Board meeting last night, with some focusing their remarks on Assistant ROV Francescut and calling for “accountability.”
Toller was hired by Supervisors Jones, Crye and Chris Kelstrom, in response to their concerns that some in the community have mistrust in the elections process. During his public interview for the position, Toller expressed uncertainty about the trustworthiness of the local elections process, but has since changed his perspective, stating in no uncertain terms over the last few weeks that he has seen absolutely no evidence of fraud in the Elections Office since he was appointed in July.
Speaking to the press today, November 8, Toller addressed the Board’s discussion of the election-related grant last night, saying he believes the Board has already ratified the grant they continue to discuss and finds it “troubling” that the Board is “trying to revisit history.”
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (59)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Recent flooding closed Cal’s Books. This group of young people is working to bring it back
In December, after Cal’s Books was flooded with two feet of water — and thousands of books were damaged — its owner decided to close the store permanently. Now a team of 20-year-olds has a plan to save the beloved store.
Board majority faces off against Supervisor Plummer on liaison positions, supervisor raises
During the board’s first meeting of 2026, Supervisor Matt Plummer was removed from a number of pivotal liaison positions.
The Doug LaMalfa I covered: Authentic, cranky and deeply caring
After the sudden death of U.S. Rep Doug LaMalfa, a CalMatters reporter who covered him for 20 years reflects on his life and legacy.
I believe the new inaugurated board should pass sanctions law for people who continually break the chambers rules of disruption while the chambers is in session.
Some great ideas!
1) Maybe a three strikes rule. Banishment from the chambers for three months.
2) Maybe a two strikes rule. Banishment from the chambers for two months.
3) A one strike rule of a simple little monetary fine.
Anything to control the disruptive behavior while the board of supervisors is in session in the people’s house.
What y’all think? Your ideas are most welcome🤪
Happy: I vote we follow the Brown Act and First Amendment which would supersede any local laws anyway. Save time and money on litigation.
I revise and extend my earlier comment. The meeting was recessed and not adjourned.
I now question the propriety and legality of the clearing order issued by Supervisor Crye. There appears to be no reason for that order. The single protestor was, according to this account, sitting quietly (save for a single and earlier verbal outburst) and can in no way have disturbed or disrupted the meeting by her conduct.
If she was disturbing the meeting the presence of “the nine” standing at the back of the room was and equal or greater source of disturbance. Nine large men, standing when seating was available, could well be taken as menacing to any who did not share their views.
I join those who wonder aloud, but without response from Sheriff Johnson, what safety issue existed that warranted clearing journalists and the public from observing the arrest of the sole quiet protestor.
My thoughts exactly, but then again…Didn’t Sheriff Johnson issue a statement concerning that going after those who were carrying concealed weapons in public buildings would be at his discretion? Meaning that he would be more inclined to follow Jones’ 2nd Amendment gun ordinance pertaining to Shasta County rather than uphold State or Federal law? So the threat of a quiet, peaceful, unarmed protester was more of a safety threat to him than 9, perhaps armed, known (illegal) militia members standing at attention at the back wall? The safety threat of Jenny Nowain’s peaceful protest was greater to him than trampling on the Constitutional rights of the Press… not to mention the use of force as the Press was literally shoved out the doors? Is Sheriff Johnson off the hook because he chose to use his discretion as he stated he would in the Press release? Does being a Constitutional Sheriff give him the right to pick and choose what laws he will uphold?
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/constitutional-sheriffshttps://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/constitutional-sheriffs
Betsy, I don’t think Jones, Cry, Kelstorm, or their confederate white-nationalist militia (street thugs) will recognize any laws when they don’t feel like they should. In September of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld banning guns in “sensitive places” like government offices, government buildings, parks, playgrounds, bars and restaurants serving alcohol, casinos, stadiums, and more. The court cited a historical tradition of protecting the public in such areas. But then again, their political leader has a long history of lawlessness, so I guess they think they can be lawless, too.
Excellent reporting. Thank you so much. I enjoyed the responses to your article as well. Shasta county has some brilliant and judicious citizens and that relieves my anxiety about the future of my community.
So can the news media sue the Sheriff over blocking their attempt to cover the arrest of an unarmed individual showing no sign of violence or resistance because of a safety issue? And was there an explanation for why the lights were turned off?
Randy: The media can bring legal action for violation of First Amendment and Brown Act rights.
The media would have had a slam dunk 1st amendment case if a member of the media had not participated in the disturbance (Nowain).
Funny, I thought Benjamman complied. Was he arrested and charged?
Ben left the room before law enforcement arrived. He told me that he’s been informed that charges will be pressed. That’s not confirmed by anyone at the county. I’m not sure how they can press charges when he left before LE arrived . . . but I’m not an attorney, or a judge.
Shasta Scout,
Your headlines read:
“As Tensions Mount in Shasta County, Sheriff’s Deputies Arrest PEACEFUL Protestor Amidst Discussion on Election Funds”
Your headlines should read:
“As Tensions Mount in Shasta County, Sheriff’s Deputies Arrest DISRUPTIVE Protestor Amidst Discussion on Election Funds”
It wasn’t PEACEFULL, it was DISRUPTIVE
And according to the rules of the Chamber. Any disruption will recess the meeting until the disruption has ended.
Shast Scout and others need to get out of the way of the incident and let law enforcement to their job.
It’s not the media or other people’s job to interfere with the apprehension of a law breaker. No matter how sweet or innocent you think the law breaker is.
Shasta Scout can we please get the headlines right. 😊
Citizen: She was absolutely peaceful. Happy for you to try to demonstrate otherwise.
Ok Nick.
So Happy, I think the First Amendment makes clear that the press has the right to cover anything that happens in a public forum. But I am really impressed with your concern for law and order and in agreement that criminals need to be put in jail if convicted. So please join me in demanding the 34 count convicted felon who is also an adjudicated rapist (the judge’s words not mine) should have his bail revoked and he should be sentenced and sent to prison ASAP. Thank you patriot.
Mr. Gardinier,
I believe the comments of the Headlines were….
“As Tensions Mount in Shasta County, Sheriff’s Deputies Arrest PEACEFUL Protestor Amidst Discussion on Election Funds”
I mentioned the protester wasn’t peaceful. but was disruptive.
And I didn’t say the protester needed jail time.
And it wasn’t about some gobble gook political felony charge garbage about somebody else.
Get a grip on yourself my friend, it isn’t the end of the world.😜
Happy: Please understand, all protest disrupts in some way otherwise how would it be protest? The questions we must ask are is this protest peaceful and nonviolent? Can the meeting continue despite this protest?
Annelise,
The meeting did continue after recess.
The chamber rules were broken by disruptive behavior from 2 people sitting on the floor at chambers “well”.
Clearly a violation of chamber’s rules.
The chamber rules saids “attendant’s to remain in seats or stand at the back wall.
So this about disruptive behavior in the chambers.
If a person wants to protest by laying on the ground or holdup signs. They should go outside the chambers.
This will allow the peoples business to be conductive without disruptive behavior.
Citizen: Check the Brown Act and First Amendment.
Happy, “gobble gook political felony charge garbage…” Somehow, I didn’t think you really aren’t for law and order, as your reply states. What Jenney did was very peaceful, yet I doubt Jenney will not contest the ticket for “disruption” she will receive.
Here’s an example of violent protest and disruption. What the 1500 convicted 06 insurrectionists did was far from peaceful. What Trump did was adjudicated rape and 34 felonies. Will he pardon himself? I know both Trump, and you will contest the charge and conviction. Here’s the difference between your thinking and mine. Evidently, you state one can break the law if you proclaim it’s a gobble gook charge. It’s a good thing you’re not on the bench or trying to argue this in a court, as justice is not Just Us, but by law, it is a concept equally applied to all.
So Happy. How do we live in peace “with liberty and justice for all” when that allegiance to justice for all is but a Just Us lie?
BTW, Harris supporters have fully accepted the fact that Trump won in a free and fair election and that there will be a peaceful transition of power as the constitution and citizens expect. Trump and his supporters never did. I do. Do you? I’m just asking in the name of civil discourse.
The election corruption in Shasta County has to come to an end. Transparency is the key. County election employees should have nothing to hide. There is nothing wrong with having election observers. If anyone has a problem with any of that, then I would have to conclude that they are “okay” with election fraud or are too lazy to do the research that reveals that yes indeed it exists.
So where is this proof of election fraud that the observers have!?
Do they have anything??
How many years has this been going on? And there’s still no proof that will stand up in court??
Yeah nonsense. Bring forth your proof. Where is it???
Or are you to lazy to bring it forward??
Observing a transparent election is a right of the public. But, an observer does not have the right to touch ballots and equipment or to interfere with the ROV’s administration of the election. See Elections Code section 18502.
(a) Any person who in any manner interferes with the officers holding an election or conducting a canvass, as to prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted, or with the voters lawfully exercising their rights of voting at an election, is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for 16 months or two or three years.
(b) For purposes of this section, “officers holding an election or conducting a canvass” include, but are not limited to, the Secretary of State as the chief elections officer, and their staff, as it relates to performance of any of their duties related to administering the provisions of the Elections Code, and elections officials and their staff, including temporary workers and poll workers, and members of a precinct board, in their performance of any duty related to assisting with holding an election or conducting a canvass.
(c) For purposes of this section, “holding an election or conducting a canvass” includes, but is not limited to, the election observation process governed by the Elections Code and applicable regulations adopted by the Secretary of State.
(d) For purposes of this section, “voting at an election” includes, but is not limited to, voting in person at a polling place or at the office of the elections official, including satellite locations pursuant to Section 3018, and voting by mail and returning a voted ballot pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 3017.
See also Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations section 20878
(a) In order to minimize distraction or disruption an elections observer shall not:
(1) Interfere with the:
(A) retrieval of vote-by-mail ballots from vote-by-mail drop boxes and vote-by-mail dropoff locations, processing of vote-by-mail ballot identification envelopes, or the processing and counting of vote-by-mail ballots.
(B) conduct of the election in general or disrupt any other elections activity or process.
(2) Touch or handle any ballots.
(3) Physically handle any voting equipment or voting materials.
(4) Move or rearrange tables, chairs, or voting booths at the polling place or central counting site without the express permission of the elections official.
(5) Sit at the elections official worktables or view confidential voter information on any computer terminal or document, except as provided in Elections Code section 2194(c)(2).
(6) Engage in any electioneering activities.
(7) Display any political party or campaign material or wear political party or campaign badges, buttons, or apparel.
(8) Solicit a vote, speak to a voter on the subject of marking the voter’s ballot while electioneering, or communicate with voters regarding their qualification to vote within 100 feet of the locations identified in Elections Code section 319.5. However, an election observer may conduct exit polling of voters, provided it is conducted at least 25 feet away from the locations identified in Elections Code section 319.5. This provision shall not apply to a voter who has asked for assistance casting their ballot.
(9) Wear the uniform of a peace officer, a private guard, or security personnel.
(10) Stop or attempt to stop poll workers or the central counting site workers while they are processing voted ballots. However, the election observer shall retain the right to make a challenge, and the elections official shall determine whether the processing of the ballots shall be stopped.
(11) Use the elections officials’ phones, computers, or any other polling place equipment at polling places or the central counting site.
(12) Eat or drink in a polling place or the central counting site without the express permission of the elections official.
(13) Assist in operations at any polling place or the central counting site without the express permission of the elections official.
(14) Intentionally prevent other elections observers from observing election materials or an elections process or activity.
(15) Enter secure areas without the express permission of the elections official.
(16) Enter any area other than an identified observation area without the express permission of the elections official.
(b) An election observer shall refrain from touching an elections official.
Jones has a lotta damn gall to continue whining about his “doubts” about the election process when he’s the fellow who just got slapped with a $10,000 fine for misreporting his election funds. Little bit of hypocrisy here (I know, shocking, eh?)
Wow so Crye was so nervous about Jenny’s protest he had to call in the local Aryan white supremacists aka Cottonwood militia to stand at the back of the room for protection? Talk about overkill. At least we know what they look like now -thanks for the picture Annelise.
The lights off routine, clearing the room and not allowing the press to remain shows how desperate Crye is and ineffective a leader he is. Even his personal friend he hired for county counsel-Larmour has turned out to be a waste of money but I’m sure he enjoys cashing his check each month and knows he’s got a golden parachute to get out of the deal . They just count on most of Shasta county to stay tuned out and let them play.
Annelise – journalists report unbiased facts and deliver news. What you do is create very left leaning opinionated content for media clicks. There is a big difference. I hope you have the integrity to reply instead of just deleting my post.
Mindy: Please let me know what you saw in this story that wasn’t fact.
Part of bias is in choosing which facts to report. For instance, I see no mention that the ROV’s office was using a grant that the board specifically prohibited them from using by a 3-2 vote in its February 28, 2023 meeting nor the county council’s reminder that the Board of Supervisors, not ROV, controls the purse strings.
Instead I see only a missummarization of Toller’s assertion that by accepting the Hart contract, the board somehow inadvertently approved receiving the CTCL “zuckbucks” grant too.
Mahmoud: Actually the Board voted to use the grant. Crye even mentioned that during his comments.
The boar approved a counter proposal from Crye to limit “Zuckbucks” only to real property or building construction. Jones and Crye claim they have email evidence the ROV’s office intentionally lied and usurped the BOS’s purse-string authority by using the grant money elsewhere, but the board needed to waive privilege before publicizing the emails.
So we’ll see next meeting who is telling the truth.
Mahmoud: Imagine how much more orderly the meeting would have been if they’d produced their alleged proof before making such accusations? I requested the emails prior to the meeting so I could confirm for myself, so it’s not like they didn’t know the proof would be wanted. This is, after all, a public meeting where they are airing public grievances without showing the public key documentation. Is that legal? Probably. Disruptive to public peace? Apparently.
Mr. Darwash, as we are all entitled to express our opinions, I hope you are appreciative that media such as Shasta Scout let you do so. As you may know, Shasta Scout does not have to do so by law.
Christian: I have edited your comment as I am unsure why you would assume someone’s religious beliefs or voting choices unless you know them personally. If I’m in error and you do know Mahmoud personally, perhaps a direct message would be a better place for such a statement.
Annalise. I apologize for bringing religion into the conversation in this article, an excellent report on the on social-political attack on law, civility, truth and the resulting chaos inflicted upon Shasta County.
Mr. Darwash has expressed in other forms an open disdain for Democrats for their support of a social-political and militaristic attack on the people of Palestine, a distain as a progressive Democrat understand and I share.
My point is that Mr. Darwash’s continuing support of the attack on the Shasta County ROV and assistant ROV, and attack on nonviolent peaceful protest, is a social-political attack in service to our local tRumpian arm of the MAGA Republican Party that has a clear distain for the people of Palestine, a clear alliance with the extreme far-right leader of Israel, with Putin and with authoritarianusm as a means of governance, as Jones and Crye seem to demonstrate weekly with their insults, racism, misogyny, belligerence and lies, and other typical authoritarian tools.
Religion should be left out of governance. However, locally, as nationally, white nationalist Christianity is indeed part of the social-political equation. But what do I know…. I was called an uncircumcised Philistine during a public SCBOS meeting by a government official that attacks Shasta County’s elections almost every meeting, who in fact stated that my vote doesn’t count because it’s “unconstitutional” therefore, the board must not certify the elections. Mr. Darwash might not know that the Board of Supervisors has absolutely no jurisdiction over our local elections, period.
I hope the local MAGA support’s
Mr. Darwash in attacking the ROV as much as he does doing in so. But, I really think that it is at best, a hypocritical alliance.
Mindy Mox,
I can only assume by your above statement, that reading is quite difficult for you. Maybe you missed the three R’s, Readin, Ritin and Rithmatic during your K-12 school years. I have not found one thing I’ve ever read written by Annelise that could not be fact checked, usually by the BOS meeting video’s. I don’t even live in your county and see what a joke the JCK show is.
The cry cry jones group needs to go.
Great reporting. Thanks
Seems like in a report I heard, I am still checking to see if I heard correctly, this group of men are part of a “militia”. They certainly look intimidating, just by their stance alone. I wish Crye and Jones would stop the nonsense.
I am pleasantly surprised that Mr. Toller doesn’t seem to be merely a puppet of Crye, who put in him in the ROV position. I fully expected nothing more than obeisance at best, and sabotage on Crye’s behalf at worst. I wonder if how Crye feels about his hand-selected ROV not behaving like a proper minion. I would love to see Toller visibly, publicly support Joanna, (Crye’s #1 enemy) but that would cause him to be fired by the BOS, I think.
Also, a huge, grateful “thank you” to Shasta Scout, RS, and ANC for staying past the original order for media to leave. We all need your courage and backbone in these times.
As the Board of Supervisors appointed Mr. Toller to fill a vacant elective office, I do not believe the Board can remove him from office. Only the voters can end Mr. Toller holding office.
How can she be arrested for disturbing a public when it was adjourned.
So the meeting was on recess with the room cleared, not formally adjourned. However your point is one that also interests the attorney I spoke with. Could the meeting have continued with O’Connell Nowain sitting in the front with a sign? Possibly, but we don’t know because the meeting was stopped.
Shasta Sount… Thanks as always for being there.
But, Oh my GOD, I am so thankful the J.C.K. Crtel invited their militia to Tuesday’s meeting to guard all the Leslie Sawyer Mommies for Liberty, help our patriot conspiracy theorists protect FREEDOM with proven to be false alt-facts (spelled lies…), preserve the attack on our R.O.V. office, protect the victory of Christ’s incarnate Trump, and GOD BLESS, protect Jones, Crye and Kelstorm from Jenny O’Connell-Nowain! After all, Jenny could have gone ALL WILD, and as we know, the J.C.K. and the C.E.O. need their militia to protect them; the cops can’t do it all! Wow…
This isn’t just to Anneliese, but ANYONE weighing in on the legal interpretations potentially available in this instance:
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/1/930.html
Read this opinion (please don’t skim) in its entirety, and there are details of significant value in the footnotes.
Lawyers are usually the ones with strong legal reasoning skills and hands-on experience, but they can also be ill-informed on matters they do not regularly run across in their practices. This is not a commonly-charged crime.
We live in a society where the majority of people will freely speak on matters of law and justice without ever having taken a look at a single case or a section of the California Penal Code, and those who do any research whatsoever, no matter how contrived or biased, quickly deem themselves ‘experts’ on the topic, often gifting themselves with microphones or other platforms for their “insights” (often while insulting those who are actually licensed working professionals in that same field).
Courtroom television and movies do not provide a realistic perspective on the workings of the justice system. A real court case doesn’t just wrap up when audience attention spans are expected to wane, there is no costume department ensuring razor-sharp designer suits are worn, and attorneys who claim to be undefeated in court are either lying or certainly haven’t spent much time in court taking on difficult controversies (and the ones with the slickest or most pervasive marketing strategies are the same ones who are more likely an embarrassment in a courtroom).
Luckily for all of us, there are plenty of folks who do work hard and do care about the legally correct result. Like the ROV office. There are dynamics at play in police and prosecuting agencies that have empowered and even reinforced unethical behaviors, but it is rarely as simple as it is depicted by the general public, and it is certainly not helped when they are sought to be used as weapons or pawns by power-obsessed supervisors.
In short, although I hope I am not alone in my literacy skills: here’s the difference between a smart-aleck and a wise-aleck—the smart-aleck will never even read the case I shared, but feel perfectly at ease offering an uninformed opinion, but the wise-aleck will realize there is much more to know and understand and be too busy learning to offer a snarky retort.
Didn’t read the case did you?
What follows if the 2024 California Jury Instructions Criminal (CALCRIM) for a charged violation of Pen.C.sec. 403. The prosecution would have to prove every element of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt” to obtain a conviction. The trial judge would read this instruction to a jury trying a violation of sec. 403, before they retired to deliberate.
2681. Disturbance of Public Meeting (Pen. Code, § 403) The defendant is charged [in Count ] with (disturbing/ [or] breaking up) a public meeting [in violation of Penal Code section 403]. To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: 1. The defendant intentionally committed acts that violated (implicit customs or usages of/ [or] explicit rules for governing) a public meeting; 2. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that (his/ her) acts violated those (customs[,]/ [or] usages[,]/ [or] rules); AND 3. The defendant’s acts substantially [and unlawfully] interfered with the conduct of the meeting. You may not find the defendant guilty of this crime unless you find that the defendant’s acts themselves, not the message or expressive content of the acts, substantially interfered with the conduct of the meeting. [When deciding whether the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that (his/her) acts violated the (implicit customs or usages of/ [or] explicit rules for governing) the meeting, you may consider whether someone warned or requested the defendant to stop (his/her) activities.]
Greg: Thanks for sharing this. I always appreciate source citations. 🙂
I noticed you did not mention that Nowain had been waving multiple different signs during the meeting previous to when she got up out of her seat and lost control. Her behavior was unnecessary and very distracting to those who were trying speak and those who were trying to listen. You describe it as peaceful, I would say more like passive agressive. Also, you failed to mention that everyone in attendance eventually had to go outside of the building. Maybe for the first 30 minutes we were in the vestibule while Nowain and her husband conducted their protest. Then, we all had to go outside of the building for at least another 30 minutes probably while she was being arrested. SinceI had an opportunity to attend a meeting in person and now reading your write up I am sorry to say your journalism leans heavily to one side. I will add people did speak out on both sides during the meeting. Also, in spite of the disruption the meeting ran smoothly and important county business was dealt with, thanks to the leadership of Kevin Crye.
The meeting adjourned because of her protest.
There isn’t a government body in the world that will continue a meeting with a protester sitting in front of the dais holding up a sign.
Bruce, I would like you to explain it to me like I’m five how a meeting can’t be held while someone sits quietly with a sign.
I hate to tell you but court cases have been won on such premises over and over. I was not loud or disruptive. The speakers could be heard quite easily. The speakers could be seen. You just would have had to read a colorful sign.
No present danger was posed until an armed militia showed up. Unless, you count the eminent danger presented to the elections staff due to rhetoric spewed by the ever volatile and infantile Jones.
Fence sitting won’t help you forever eventually you will have to be honest about who you are and what you believe in.
Would the board allow anyone else holding any other sign to occupy that area of chambers during a meeting?
Mahmoud: The question SHOULD be, is the Board required to do so under First Amendment law.
There is a link in one of the comments to the California Supreme Court ruling In re Kay. One of their points was “Freedom of everyone to talk at once can destroy the right of anyone effectively to talk at all.” Limiting public comments to an orderly 3 minutes each AFTER the board discussion is perfectly lawful.
O’Connell was not denied her right to speech. She could have made her point, as she very often does, during the public comment period or by holding a sign in the audience.
She choose instead to intentionally create a disturbance to try and obstruct the meeting by entering a non public area and waiving a sign between the board and audience. She did so peacefully, unlike many on January 6, but her goal was the same: to stop the government from performing a lawful function because she didn’t like the way it was going. Civil disobedience is not always legal, and she deserved to be arrested.
The real 1st amendment issue here is the legality of moving the press outside of chambers during an arrest that no one reasonably believed would become dangerous. Ordinarily I’d be siding with the press, but things get a lot murkier when a member of the press (Nowain) was taking part in the disturbance.
Mahmoud: I appreciate some of the distinctions you’re making here. But a) it’s not clear that the area she entered was “non public” (I enter that area all the time), b) it’s not clear that the meeting was obstructed – she sat down quietly when told to do so by the Chair. She failed to follow the orders of LE but she wasn’t booked for that . . . Bottom line, the legality of her actions come down to the legality of the Chair’s order to clear the room. I think there are a lot of questions about whether that action was legal under the Brown Act and First Amendment, but again, not an attorney or judge. As far as the press, actions by one member of the press would never implicate all the rest; just like actions by one member of the public wouldn’t. Also, Benjamin was long gone by the time LE arrived and pushed press from the chamber. However I agree with you that there was no indication of danger and I’m curious to hear anyone from the county explain what safety considerations necessitated that decision. So far, CEO Rickert and County Counsel Joseph Larmour have said they won’t comment and the Sheriff hasn’t responded.
The problem with Benjamin being both a member of the press and a protester is that it gives police a reason to claim it was unsafe for press to remain in chambers during the arrest.
Likewise, your questioning police about why they were arresting O’Connell (the last time she was arrested) could reasonably be argued created the potential for escalation. An arrest is not the time for police to be fielding questions (especially questions that might encourage the arrestee – or others – to act out).
It is much more difficult for police to invoke “public safety” exceptions when the press remain neutral observers.
Mahmoud: 1) Law enforcement can’t claim there’s a “safety issue” unless there is a real one, per FAC attorney. If there was a safety issue it seems reasonable for the Sheriff to release a statement explaining it now that the event is over. 2) O’Connell wasn’t arrested last time. She was being repeatedly questioned in a public setting and there is no law against journalists asking questions of law enforcement. It is, in fact, our job.
The government is allowed to invoke time and manner restrictions on speech in the interest of public safety.
The courts have consistently ruled that a journalist in a restricted area documenting an arrest or a damage in a disaster area, does not pose a risk to public safety (only to themselves).
A journalist inserting himself/herself into an arrest, as opposed to passively documenting it, can pose a risk to public safety. Arrests are dangerous and something seemingly as innocuous as asking questions can make them more dangerous.
Imagine the most stressed you have ever been, perhaps during an important exam or writing under a critical deadline. Now imagine someone was shouting questions at you. Your cognitive load would increase and you would be significantly more prone to making mistakes. Doing this to an officer during an arrest increases the risk of harm to the officer, the arrestee, and the public at large.
Your question does not need to be answered in that exact moment. 5 minutes after the arrest will get you the same (or better) answer, without increasing the risk of harm to the public.
Mahmoud: I have never shouted at any officer and certainly not during the course of an arrest. Please review the footage from the last incident. There were calm conversations without threat of an arrest and I asked a relevant question which the officer answered. There is nothing passive about journalism, nor should there be.
Didn’t read the case did you? My above comment was meant for you.