District Attorney Files Misdemeanor Charges Against County Protester Amid ongoing First Amendment Concerns
Jenny O’Connell Nowain is being charged with disturbing the peace and resisting arrest after an incident that occurred during a county board meeting last November. It’s the latest action in an ongoing series of chess moves that have played out over the last 18 months between county officials and the public.
On November 7, as community member Jenny O’Connell Nowain staged a nonviolent protest, members of the press were ordered from the county board chamber on threat of arrest.
It’s an action that’s left the public in the dark when it comes to details of the arrest of O’Connell Nowain, whose decision to take a seat on the chamber floor after shouting comments at supervisors during a county board meeting provoked the board chair to clear the public — including local media — from the room and culminated in her arrest.
In a letter dated June 9, the District Attorney’s Office informed O’Connell Nowain that she’s been charged with two misdemeanors related to the event. One, PC 403, relates to allegedly “disturbing” or “breaking up” a public meeting. The other, PC 148, is for allegedly resisting arrest.
She will appear in court on July 11.
O’Connell Nowain says its ridiculous that she was arrested for exercising her First Amendment rights. She pointed out that her silent protest by sitting on the floor of the chamber wasn’t an actual disruption of the meeting because it didn’t stop public officials from continuing to conduct the public’s business.
“My concern is who’s next. Who will step over their arbitrary line and be prosecuted next. I think I’m being made an example of,” O’Connell Nowain said.
Arrest made amid free speech and public access concerns
Her arrest occurred under the shroud of darkness, after county officials turned off the lights in the chamber, then pushed the press from the room. Deputies from the Sheriff’s Office told the media they had to leave due to a “safety concern,” claiming they’d explain later what it was.
They never did.
Five days after O’Connell Nowain’s arrest, the First Amendment Coalition issued a letter of warning to the county, noting that public officials’ actions during the meeting, including the decision to clear the public and the press from the room, had violated a California transparency law known as the Brown Act and may have violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections.
The wider context
The events from November 7 are part of an ongoing series of chess moves that have played out over the last 18 months between county leadership and members of the public, including the press.
Since January 2024, Shasta County Board Chair Kevin Crye has used a variety of tactics in attempts to maintain order during contentious public meetings. Working closely with county attorney Joseph Larmour, Crye has repeatedly responded to the public’s acts of protest by issuing warnings and clearing the public from the board chamber.
Last summer Crye issued a new policy in hopes of sequestering the press to a separate room during meetings. That policy was later walked back after an FAC attorney referred to it as “problematic” for press freedom.
Crye’s latest questionable response to protest occurred in late May after a public commenter mentioned Gaza. The commenter was cleared from the room along with other public attendees, who were later allowed to return while attorney Larmour told the commenter they would not be allowed to reenter that day. Like several others, this incident also posed concerns for Brown Act and First Amendment violations, legal experts said.
Protecting Protest
According to guidance shared by Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Policy and Advocacy, law enforcement officers cannot legally stop a member of the public from engaging in protected acts of protest. A report from O’Connell Nowain’s arrest does not address whether officers considered her right to protest in a public space, focusing instead on statements from county officials about the perceived need to clear the room.
The arrest report also documents an uncorroborated claim that “five individuals who identified as Antifa” were present outside the building during the disruption. Local community member and activist Nathan Pinkney told Shasta Scout after the meeting that he believes a joke he made that night was the original source of the rumor. It’s not clear what relevance, if any, such a rumor would have had to O’Connell Nowain’s arrest.
How Did Nowain’s Case Result in Charges?
While law enforcement has the power to arrest community members, only the District Attorney’s office can file charges. Shasta Scout reached out to District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett to ask, amid a pressing staff shortage, what objective policies guide the DA in determining when to file charges. DA spokesperson Brionna Sisneros responded.
“During the review process an attorney reviews the case … and determines whether a charge or charges can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and if so, would it be appropriate to actually file those charges,” Sisneros wrote.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Through December 31, NewsMatch is matching donations dollar-for-dollar up to $18,000, giving us the chance to double that amount for local journalism in Shasta County. Don't wait — the time to give is now!
Support Scout, and multiply your gift
Author
Comments (40)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
A group of community members are hoping to start a new medical school in Shasta. Here’s what we know
Redding Vice Mayor Dr. Paul Dhanuka and Simpson University President Dr. Norm Hall are some of the leading figures behind the plan.
With more rain ahead, Redding officials explain flooding, urge caution
This weekend, the city’s stormwater infrastructure became clogged with debris due to the speed and volume of rain, officials said, leading to serious flooding in parts of Redding.
The Redding Public Market opened about a month ago. Here’s how it’s going
The CEO of the development company that owns the market said the venue, which is serving around 2,000 people a day, is revitalizing downtown.
Kevin Crye is a man posing as warrior but really he is a little crye baby with a fragile ego. Had to bully a woman who demonstrated her rights civilly and legally. What w loser he is.
This is the most ridiculous charge. She was quietly protesting and crye baby has been crippled by it because his narcissistic ego can’t handle a woman’s disapproval. Grow up crye and quit being a pansy!
SC BoS activity is so ignorant I can’t even formulate an intelligent thought while thinking about it.
Jones to Crye, “Quick steal all you can… sprawl is coming for us…”
Word.
No matter what happens next, it’s ok. I’ll be ok.
I don’t want this to be a time to fall apart but rather a time to band together. Continue to speak up and speak out. Continue to move forward, to educate the public, to stand in the way.
Teach them that iron fists don’t stop dissent. Only listening. Only hearing. Only understanding will stop it now.
It’s not about me. It’s about the fact that when one of us loses our constitutional rights, we all do. It can be any one of us. But only if you let it. Stand up and stand together. Whether I’m with you or not, just keep going.
Theft. It’s in vogue GOV stylie…
I’d agree that the DA choosing to prosecute would be a questionable use of resources if this was a one time disruption. But she’d already been removed and cited at a previous meeting.
This was not a 1st amendment issue: She was not prevented from speaking her piece (as she does almost every meeting); she was instead removed for obstructing supervisors’ view of the public (and the public’s view of the supervisors) by holding a sign in between. Her action was absolutely intended as a disruption and she considered her actions “good trouble.” She and her husband have used the attention garnered by her disruptions as fundraising opportunities, bringing in around $6,000 on GoFundMe.
And not that it matters from a 1st amendment standpoint, but what was she protesting? Civil rights? The environment? Public safety? Nope, she was protesting the chair’s refusal to apologize to her husband.
Hi Harry/Jay: O’Connell Nowain actually sat down immediately as soon as she was asked to by the board chair.
Sitting or standing is immaterial; she choose to continue holding her sign in front of Chair Jones’ face, “substantially impair(ing) the conduct of the meeting.”
Jay/Harry: also untrue.
Your readers can judge for themselves. Skip to around 35 minutes: https://youtu.be/uUFbT9jaqZ0?
Jay/Harry. The sign was of the legal as size, and no, it was not in Jones or anyone else’s face, as Jenny was on the floor. This prosecution could be seen as arbitrary and capricious as another protester did
basically the same thing (without a sign) and the MAGA extreme-right Cartel did nothing, crickets, the meeting went on in peace. The MAGA Cartel has had it out for the Jenny and Benjamin for a long time, with Crye often calling a periodical Benjamin works for, “fake news.” I wonder, Harry, were you there? I was. You are a unreliable reporter, dipping into fiction, as unreliable as whoever stated “five individuals who identified as Antifa” were at the meeting. Of course MAGA lies all the time and you can fool some of the people some of time and some of the people all of the time but not everybody all the time. And nope, I’m not.
Here’s a camera angle from the height of a sitting audience member. Her sign is clearly being held at a height blocking the audience’s view of the board (and the board’s view of the audience): https://ibb.co/tM5H8J19
Thanks Harry/Jay: I acknowledge that you believe the presence of the sign “substantially impaired” the ability of the board to conduct business.
If you were sitting in the audience the sign was blocking your view of Chair Jones and his view of the audience. Here’s a screenshot: https://i.postimg.cc/FFwssY2g/Screenshot-20250709-171241.png
Keep in mind that camera angle is from the height of someone standing at the side & back of the room (not sitting up front and center) and her sign still partially obstructed Jones.
You are quick to allege bias, yet I know you would not be defending Richard Gallardo if he’d been arrested after holding a sign in front of Mary Rickert’s face…
Annelise Pierce: Just want to clarify for your blog followers:
Journalist Versus Web Activist
A journalist aims to objectively report news and events, while a web activist uses the internet to advocate for a cause, often with a partisan perspective. While both can utilize the internet, their core functions and goals differ significantly. Journalists strive for impartiality and accuracy, while activists prioritize influencing public opinion and promoting their agenda.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Journalists:
Goal: To inform the public by reporting on events and issues in an objective and unbiased manner.
Methods: Employing journalistic ethics, including fact-checking, seeking multiple perspectives, and striving for accuracy and fairness in their reporting.
Focus: Providing a balanced and nuanced understanding of complex issues.
Web Activists:
Goal: To promote a specific cause or agenda through online engagement and advocacy.
Methods: Utilizing online platforms to share information, mobilize support, and challenge opposing viewpoints, often with a strong emotional appeal.
Focus: Influencing public opinion, mobilizing supporters, and pressuring those in power to address their concerns.
Key Differences:
Objectivity vs. Advocacy: Journalists are expected to maintain objectivity, while activists openly advocate for their cause.
Fact-checking vs. Persuasion: Journalists prioritize accuracy and verification of facts, while activists may prioritize persuasive narratives to advance their agenda.
Multiple Perspectives vs. Single-Minded Focus: Journalists seek diverse perspectives to provide a comprehensive view, while activists tend to focus on presenting their cause from their specific viewpoint.
Transparency vs. Selective Information: Journalists aim for transparency in their reporting process, while activists may selectively choose information to support their cause.
Blurring Lines: In the digital age, the lines between journalism and activism have blurred. Most mainstream news agencies now engage in activism. Activism is now being taught in journalism schools. This accounts for the distrust of the media and the decline of the journalism profession.
Mary: Always appreciate media literacy!:) We follow the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics.
Impressive job on the ChatGPT cut-n-paste Mary! Who says you can’t teach an old dog new tricks? LOL
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
“Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America,” said the late great Congressman John Lewis. “Good trouble” refers to peaceful and non-violent actions taken to challenge injustice and create positive change. Now, the District Attorney is charged with speaking for the “people” as a prosecutor, while serious crime seems to run rampant in Shasta County. As the DA, they are personally hamstrung by budget cuts imposed by the extreme far-right Crye, Kelstorm, CEO Rickert, and Corke Cartel, the so-called “victims of crime” in this case. As publicly pointed out, the Cartel detests the DA because they won’t toe the MAGA line and have, on many occasions, publicly threatened to cut the DA’s budget, undermining the ability to prosecute crime. Crye asked an assistant DA why they wouldn’t work for peanuts like the Sheriff does, and Kelstorm compared the DA’s office to his daughter in Toys ‘R’ Us throwing a temper tantrum because she couldn’t get a toy she wanted. We all know that if the DA didn’t prosecute Jenny O’Connell, Nowain, the Cartel would spend hours in a BOS meeting demanding “justice,” like the pitchfork mob scene from Frankenstein. And I doubt Jenny will come groveling to Crye with apologies. Jones, Crye, and Kelstrom have shown profound ignorance, spiteful retribution, vengeance, cronyism, sexism, and racism in their political far-right platform. They’ve spent millions on issues outside their legal jurisdiction and on MAGA-tRum propaganda, while streets fall apart and jails fill up, and as they confine the DA’s office. Jenny has, can, and will speak for herself. The point is, Jenny is NON-VIOLENT and takes to heart “Speak up, speak out, get in the way,” emphasizing that witnessing wrongdoing isn’t a passive act—there’s a moral obligation to act. The extreme far-right Shasta County Board of Supervisors, like MAGA-Trump, persistently creates the need for Good Trouble in just about every session they hold. As pointed out in the First Amendment Coalition letter, there is a moral obligation to act. More Good Trouble Is Needed!
Tell me you’re interviewing for a journalist position without telling me! Extreme left supposition
Supposition? Hardly. No, But thanks, Jones. Like you, I fully believe in what I say, and no, I’m not interviewing for a job as a journalist or an Anselmo employee either. Have a good day.
You make some good points and its likely the DA was “influenced/ forced” to file charges for political favors. What would be interesting is if a moderate MAGA supporter were to commit the same disturbance with a banner and what the outcome would be?
While Shasta County has traditionally been a conservative area, the last few years it has become an extremist view and anyone that dissents or opposes is viewed as an enemy. The old saying, “if two or more people think alike, then there may not be any real thinking occurring”. We should be able to debate, discuss and disagree without fear as long as we do it in a manner that maintains civility and is not so disruptive as to cause a logjam.
I can’t say or explain how we got this way, but I learned a long time ago that the answer to every question is “Money”. Our county has suffered through a economic downturn for years and the revenues just don’t cover the pricely cost of doing business and running the county.
The County cannot attract top talent for critical positions and for Supervisor Crye to mention that Deputy D.A.’s should want to do the job as a calling, that only goes so far when you have a mortgage, bills and children to raise.
I apologize for the rambling diatribe.
This action, unnecessary and a complete waste of resources, will draw the attention of high profile defense attorneys that are probably salivating at the chance to defend free speech.
If that is what the voting majority of Shasta County wants, stand by and witness the unwanted attention from the rest of the State. This reminds me of the poor dwarf goat that the Sheriff’s Office decided to author search warrants and send personnel to track down the goat and charge the mother of the little girl with grand theft. I think most of us know how that played out but I still want to know who barbecued the goat and who was seated at the table when it was served.
And while we are exploring misdemeanor charges, what is the status of the off duty deputy who was rumored to be under the influence when he caused the crash which prompted the Sheriff to issue a scathing social media response and media release protecting his employee.
I’m not a fan of liberal, far left politics, but my anxiety and an increased when authorities choose to intimidate and bully peaceful protests and the ring leader is constantly exercising his power and influence.
His name is Micah Scheibe. The charges were filed 6/5, and his arraignment is 7/18. It’s case # 25CT-02157. Apparently the Sheriff is mum on if he still works there, is on “leave” or if he has been allowed to “resign”.
Steve,
thank you for the update. As you mentioned there are crickets coming from the Sheriff’s Office regarding the incident and the case, while not the crime of century, has lost its appeal to the public. Which was only an issue because of the response/ post by the Sheriff shaming the rumors on social media.
As for the status of the Deputy, it is a personnel matter so that information is protected/ confidential until the outcome of the case. If convicted, the Deputy may/ should appear on the Crime Watch website maintained by a media / news group. And, the incident will be under review by POST for decertification, however, most misdemeanors not involving any violence are usually not held up for decertification.
One thing I did notice is that they charged him with misdemeanors. Isn’t a dui with an accident and major property damage supposed to be a felony? Giving local LE a break on the charges is par for the course in Shasta County.
I want to believe that the D.A. has chosen to bring this case so the Courts can have an opportunity to weigh in and “school”Kevin about his arrogant behavior. I’m just going to choose to hold out hope that this becomes a very public humiliation of the Board Chair.
Great reporting. This county needs to realize that despite left or right, blue or red, conservative or liberal, that what the Shasta county board did was illegal and clearly violated several protected rights of the very citizens that elected them. So, ms. **hiccup** bridgett, can we expect you to file charges against mr. crye and his cronies as well as members of Shasta county sheriffs for the blatant misuse of power, their incessant assault against both CA state law, and, although I don’t think you’re probably smart enough to argue constitutional law, their diminishment of our first amendment? Or are you going to ensure that from a historical standpoint all you will be remembered for is; nearly constant complaining of how you cannot recruit nor keep staffing levels, and that your tenure as DA is utterly drenched in disgusting, undeniable corruption of the very politics our freedoms allow for and you are actually attempting to prosecute.
My question is whether DA Bridgett needs some CLE hours to refresh her memory about what’s a crime and what’s not. Hypothetically, let’s say a reporter was assaulted in public. Would the DA file charges? No? But against a peaceful protester, yes? Make it make sense. What is really going on here?
What a colossal waste of time by the DA. A civil protest gets so far under their skin they take it to this level. We don’t need ice in Shasta county to make us more disgusted we have Crye and his butt hurt feelings.
I wish we could charge Kevin with disturbing the peace. It’s his daily affirmation.
I’m angry. I USED to believe the DA dept was understaffed and overworked, as they always claim. With this choice to prosecute Nowain my opinion has changed considerably. Granted, Nowain is an attention seeker, but so what? This department needs less money so they are forced to make better choices. Ms. Bridgitt is losing my confidence and possibly my vote as well.
Your thoughts on the matter are endemic of the liberal left! The minute somebody comes after them it’s wrong, a waste of time, and a loss of trust. The playbook has been the same for a long time for everyone to see! You are no different believe me. In fact, just an average liberal left sycophant !
What! A! Convincing! Argument!
Your use of exclamation points somehow make your argument right and correct!!!
You!! Should!! Use!! More!!
!!!Please!!!
Why thank you Jon. Coming from you I consider it a compliment and evidence of my superior intelligence.
BTW Jon, if you had acted in exactly the same way as Nowain I would feel the same way about it… that is the DA would be wrong to charge.
While I basically support the work of the DA and its staff, this one is a loser coming out of the gate. Please withdraw this feckless request from Crye. Ms. O’Connell-Nowain is not someone to be made an example of. Drop it.
This case vividly demonstrates how low-priority and constitutionally questionable arrests continue to move through the DA’s review process, consuming valuable time and resources. Instead of serving as a critical filter for marginal or politically motivated cases, the DA’s office is choosing to prosecute them—cases that arguably should never make it past intake. In doing so, the review process itself becomes a major contributor to the office’s claim of being “overworked.”
Rather than exercising discretion and declining weak or symbolic prosecutions like this one, the DA’s office invests taxpayer-funded energy into pursuing minor infractions and peaceful acts of protest. These decisions trigger unnecessary court proceedings, generate avoidable paperwork, and burden an already strained public defense system—all for cases that do nothing to enhance public safety. And speaking of safety—has anyone in Shasta County actually felt safer in the last year? Under the RPD’s so-called “proactive enforcement” approach, misdemeanor arrests have surged by 32%. But if the result is prosecuting peaceful demonstrators, what exactly are we accomplishing?
Well said, Steve. One thing that I believe is that both Crye and apparently the DA are trying to accomplish is to discourage dissent. This is an ominous situation.
It is easy to see the “power political maneuvering” at work in what should be a cooperative accomplishment of local government administration.
Time to go back to school! It has nothing to do with dissent and everything to do with disruption of public works!
How does sitting with a sign disrupt **a n y t h i n g**? (Except maybe a narcissist’s ego.)