After we learned earlier this month that the RNC 8 will face a single trial, we also learned that Judge Teresa Warner has denied Max Specktor’s motion to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless search on September 1, 2008.  Max and his attorney Larry Leventhal had argued the motion in a September 29 hearing, a week before the October 8 hearing in which all eight argued for joinder at trial.

While the ruling was not unexpected - Warner herself made the same ruling about the same warrantless search in another RNC case - it provides a demonstration of the hierarchy that renders the criminal justice system incapable of achieving actual justice. (Read the ruling itself here.)

Max’s house at 3500 Harriet Ave. in Minneapolis was violently raided early on the morning of Saturday, August 30, 2008, but Max wasn’t home at the time.  Two days later, on September 1 (the first day of the RNC), a “probable cause pickup and hold” was issued for his arrest.  Several plainclothes undercovers staked out the house, and when Max got in a van with several others to leave in the morning, the undercovers tailed the van and radioed for marked squad cars to pull it over on the pretense of a minor traffic violation.

Police ran up to the van with their guns needlessly drawn, ordered everyone out, and arrested Max.  Officers claimed that items could be seen in the van which could theoretically be used for actions at the RNC protests.  On that premise, despite not obtaining a search warrant for the van, and with no evidence that any of the items inside (except a single shoulder bag) belonged to Max, they decided to search it anyway.  But first, a police officer got in the van and drove it himself to a nearby police station, where the search was conducted outside of public view.  Nobody has any way to know whether authorities tampered with the contents of the van.  Now, the prosecution intends to use that so-called evidence at trial.

To choose just one example of the twisted logic the state considers justice: Judge Warner wrote in her ruling on the motion that “It was necessary for police officers to impound the vehicle, [because] there were public safety concerns that outweigh the van’s occupants’ right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The only “public safety concerns” cited were 1) that traffic was inconvenienced by the parked van (but not, of course, by the gaggle of police vehicles), and 2) that bystanders were beginning to gather to monitor police conduct and perhaps to demand a just resolution to the situation.  It’s true: public dissent is indeed a concern to the safety of the government.

The argument by the prosecution, which was upheld by the Court, was essentially that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure was overridden by technicalities.  This hierarchy placing low-level laws, guidelines and precedents (which tend to be friendly to the state) above overarching principles like those in the Bill of Rights (which tend to be friendlier to the people) forms a backbone of the criminal “justice” system.  Meanwhile, the rest of the Constitution we so often appeal to sets out the policies and procedures that actually prevent us from invoking a higher moral standard.

The state always determines which laws are enforced and which are ignored. This is why the “Other RNC 8,” who cited international law in their defense, were convicted under a measly misdemeanor statute.  And it is why, win or lose at trial, we must continue to resist injustice without seeking state sanction and without expecting the phony “protection” of Constitutional rights.  Justice comes not from governments–just from us.

All this said, the overall case for the RNC 8 is strong, even within the constraints of a system in which the state has nearly all the advantages.  To witness it in person, and help leverage our best defense of collective power, join us for court solidarity at the RNC 8’s next hearing on February 2.

–the RNC 8 Defense Committee

Tags: larry leventhal, Max Specktor, rnc 2008, RNC 8, RNC Eight, RNC8