NY judge lets Occupy lawsuit proceed against cops

Police arrest demonstrators affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement after they attempted to cross the Brooklyn Bridge on the motorway on October 1, 2011 in New York City. / Getty Images

Updated 8:04 PM ET

(AP) NEW YORK - A judge gave the green light Thursday to a lawsuit against police officers in the arrests of 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters last year on the Brooklyn Bridge, but he dismissed the city and its top officials from liability.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said in a written ruling that the marchers had adequately backed up their claims at this stage of the litigation that they were not properly warned by officers that they would be arrested on the bridge Oct. 1.

But the judge tossed out as defendants the city, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, rejecting the argument that the city and its top officials had a policy of making false arrests designed to discourage protesting.

City lawyer Arthur Larkin said the city was pleased that the judge found neither the mayor nor the police commissioner was liable. He said the city was considering its legal options, including appeal, regarding the remainder of the decision.

The judge began his decision by citing the contributions of people such as Thomas Paine and Martin Luther King Jr., saying "what a huge debt this nation owes to its `troublemakers."'

"They have forced us to focus on problems we would prefer to downplay or ignore," he said. "Yet, it is often only with hindsight that we can distinguish those troublemakers who brought us to our senses from those who were simply — troublemakers. Prudence, and respect for the constitutional rights to free speech and free association, therefore dictate that the legal system cut all non-violent protesters a fair amount of slack."

The ruling came in one of several lawsuits that resulted from the protest in which protesters were surrounded by officers in the middle of the bridge and arrested.

The protesters were demonstrating against financial inequality. Their lawsuit seeks a judgment declaring their arrests were unconstitutional and unspecified damages.

Police said the protesters were arrested and given disorderly conduct summonses for spilling into a roadway despite warnings.

The judge, in his ruling, said the plaintiffs had made an adequate showing that police failed to give fair warning to the majority of protesters that they would be arrested if they marched in traffic lanes on the bridge. He said the protesters were further confused when police officers walked into the lanes themselves and stopped traffic, making it seem as if it was all right to be there.

The judge said the videos offered by both sides show that the police officers "exercised some degree of control over the marchers, defining their route and directing them, at times, to follow certain rules."

He said the use of one bull horn to warn demonstrators where to go was clearly inadequate because "no reasonable officer could imagine, in these circumstances, that this warning was heard by more than a small fraction of the gathered multitude."

"Indeed, the plaintiffs' video shows what should have been obvious to any reasonable officer, namely, that the surrounding clamor interfered with the ability of demonstrators as few as 15 feet away from the bull horn to understand the officer's instructions," the judge added.

[Geoff_Caldwell]

Where do all the law abiding citizens who were denied their right to use the bridge and all the small business owners who suffered economic loss due to the OWS filth go to sue for damages?

[sandiegopete]

There seems to be some similarity between the way the USA authorities try to stop the Occupy protests and the way Putin tries to stop the protests in Moscow. The anti-Occupy crowd would probably vote Putin Person of the Year. Putin would be right at home on Wall Street.

[CHICO_KK]

These pathetic Losers were treated like the filthy vermin they are.

Financial inequality? Yeah, right.
Shame on wealthy people for doing so well for themselves!

[raymailhot]

And so it is! The police are bad guys unless you want their union support.

[stormerF69]

So who pays for all this legal action against the police?If the turds did not have a permit to march and blocked the bridge traffic they will lose.

[reality_sanity]

It's called due process Stormer; are you a terrorist opposed to the constitutional protections of due process (included in the Bill of Rights and more recently) reaffirmed in the 14th amendment not to mention the free speech provisions of the first amendment?

[raymailhot]

Hopefully the judge isn't as politically motivated as the first impression gives.

[djberson]

Ok, so the judge first has to find that the police did something wrong before allowing the case to proceed... ostensibly to determine whether the police did something wrong?