Eighteen people arrested at the so-called Stud Alley party on the evening of June 27, during Pride weekend, have been charged with a range of misdemeanors, according to the San Francisco District Attorney’s office.
The charges include unlawful assembly, failure to disperse at a riot, and resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer. Defendants who appeared in court this morning waived time at the arraignment, extending the timeline for the case. They will appear next on Aug. 25.
For the past six years, Stud Alley, an unsanctioned block party, has been held in SoMa on the Saturday evening of Pride.
Police this year arrived at the first gathering on Kissling Street at about 11 p.m. to disperse the crowd, and arrested two participants. The party then re-formed a few blocks over and, after issuing dispersal orders a second time, police arrested another 18 people.
Several party attendees have said that they did not hear the dispersal orders. Video footage appears to show the police issuing the orders around the corner from the primary epicenter of the party.
Masses of officers clad in riot gear marched down SoMa streets to disperse the party, and supporters of those arrested have for weeks decried what they dub a violent response.
Trans March organizers met with Mayor Daniel Lurie on July 13 about Pride weekend arrests at the Trans March and the Stud Alley party, and presented a letter signed by more than 1,500 people blasting the police response at the march.
They demanded the charges against Trans March defendants be dropped, though Lurie is not responsible for the DA’s charging decisions. District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder has sent two letters of inquiry to the San Francisco Police Department demanding drone footage of the arrests and other information about the police role at both the Stud Alley party and Trans March.
In the courtroom this morning, the line of defendants stretched nearly out the room. The judge and defense attorneys expressed surprise at the charges, which were announced around noon on Wednesday.
“I just found out about this at 4:15 yesterday,” the judge told the courtroom.
Outside the courtroom, defense attorney Jeff Wozniak reassured the crowd of defendants. “We haven’t seen charges like this in 30 to 40 years,” he remarked.
“We will get through this,” he told the crowd, adding, “This is bullshit.”
Can we normalize actually naming judges in articles? They are not anonymous or faceless, but they are elected public officials. The judge here didn’t do anything that would warrant criticism, so I don’t understand why their name couldn’t be disclosed to the public.
No charges for vandalism or property damage, interesting.
If that’s the case, and this was just a street sweep of a public gathering because the cops did not like to see people in the streets, then that’s gonna be a big First Amendment problem for Jenkins.
You do not have a first amendment right to “unlawful assembly, failure to disperse at a riot, and resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”.
A “riot”? What about this crowd and event makes you use that word?
MLreader, it was not my word. It was a direct quote from the article!
The increasingly intolerant SFPD under Mayor Lurie and poster child Jenkins is worrisome. I*ve resided in SF since 1979 so I*ve experience all kinds of police transformations, mostly shallow PR, through the years.
They aren’t the arrogant goon squad of The White Night Days but I expected much more evolution from this whining overpaid institution.
James Chizinski, I completely agree
For the record, there was not a clear dispersal order at the second party. Eventgoers were told by police that the only action would be the confiscation of the music equipment before SFPD decided to stampede the crowd of queer dancers in full riot gear.