Cops on Watch

Making the news last week were several well-known local folks who confronted a Sonoma deputy sheriff during the student march last Tuesday. Mike Smith, Will Shonbrun, and Dave Henderson, doing their best to re-live the ‘60s, took Deputy J. Cobert to task for photographing students and adults participating in the protest.
There are several important facts to keep in mind:
1) The deputy is assigned to the high school.
2) These students had violated school policy by leaving campus during morning classes.
3) These students had violated municipal codes by obstructing traffic lanes as they marched up Broadway, a state highway.
So, we don’t have a problem with the police officer assigned to the high school following the students to the plaza. If there had been any problems involving students at that time, it’s reasonably likely that it would have involved the marching students.
We presume the deputy was taking pictures in order to be able later to identify those students at the march. We can speculate on why that’s important. For instance, if there had been a disturbance, it would be helpful for police to know who was present, at least, and possibly involved. And the school reported up to 200 absences that day (well over 10% of the student body), yet observers put the number of students in the plaza at closer to 125, so maybe the photos would be useful to figure out who was NOT there – that is, who was merely cutting school, rather than participating in the live civics lesson.
Moreover, let’s not forget that this was a political protest, well advertised in advance, concerning Mexican immigration. One can ponder what might have happened if the organized proponents of closed borders, of whom there are a number in Sonoma County, calling themselves Minutemen, had decided to greet the students with a demonstration of their own on the plaza. Would we have wanted a deputy there? No question! One who already knew most of the students? Even better! In fact, we’d be questioning why he wasn’t there, had a disturbance ensued, or why he didn’t know who was involved.
Those complaining about the photographs argued that it was a peaceful demonstration. Indeed it was, but we dare say that violent demonstrations often start out peacefully. The minimal police presence might even have helped this one stay peaceful, and we’d have wanted more than a minimal presence if the event had turned ugly, for whatever reason.
Those complaining also argued that they had a right to demonstrate without being photographed. Actually, legal folks tell us it’s well established that there is no “expectation of privacy” for those congregating in public places. Photographing or filming those people “in clear public view” does not violate their rights, any more than do the cameras on school buses, or the dash-mounted cameras in patrol cars.
The Sonoma city council is expected to consider at its next meeting on Wednesday, June 6, what policies, if any, it has in place on this issue. [That meeting, as well as all subsequent meetings of the council, is to be televised live on SVTV27, the new Sonoma Valley Television Channel 27 on Comcast Cable; 7 p.m. is the regular start time.]
It’s a fact of life that society needs policing – the question is, how much. History is filled with examples of oppressive policing, and we in the United States, and in Sonoma, are truly fortunate to live in these times of relative freedom. Are there abuses? Yes. Would that include the high school police officer taking photographs of students violating school rules? We don’t think so.