A judge on Monday threw out all charges against 18 people arrested at the San Francisco “Stud Alley” party over Pride weekend in June.
All 18 were charged with resisting arrest, unlawful assembly and the failure to comply with a dispersal order.
But new evidence, acquired earlier this month by defense attorneys and reported by Mission Local, called the legality of the arrests into question.
Body-camera footage and internal police documents showed that San Francisco police officers did not issue an order of dispersal immediately before making those arrests, though they had issued a dispersal order over an hour earlier while the party took place at a different location.
Visiting Superior Court Judge Brian Hill of Santa Barbara presided over the case in a packed Hall of Justice courtroom in which more than two dozen people had come in support of the “Stud Alley 18.”
Hill went one by one, asking attorneys for the background of each defendant.
He found that all but one had no prior criminal record. Many were employed, several had lost employment because of the arrest, and one defendant, an immigrant, was facing potential visa issues as a result of the charges.
After more than two hours reviewing police documents and considering the case, Hill dismissed all charges against each of the defendants.
He read aloud from a San Francisco Police Department document called a “Chronological of Investigation,” and reasoned that there weren’t sufficient facts to justify either “failure to disperse” or “unlawful assembly” charges for any of the individuals who were arrested.
“At the end of the day, there’s a very strict requirement that there be a directive to disperse,” Hill said. “And the fact that one happened an hour and a half before in a different location, I don’t think that has that kind of carryover.”
An arrest for unlawful assembly, he added, requires that either the people gathered for an illegal action, or that there was an immediate threat of violence. Evidence from police suggested neither was the case at the party, which involved more than 100 people dancing in the street on the Saturday of San Francisco Pride weekend.
The third charge for “resisting arrest,” Hill said could be argued — but, after reviewing each case, he found that there was “minimal resistance.”
“At this point, I think that there is ample reason to conclude that a motion to dismiss should be granted in the interest of justice,” Hill said.
“That’s not to suggest that there weren’t crimes that were committed,” he added.
Police documents identified a number of crimes committed during the Stud Alley party, including vandalism, blocking the street and noise violations.
“But none of those acts are alleged to have been committed by the people before the court,” Hill said.
When the hearing concluded, there was loud cheering in the courtroom. The defendants excitedly filed out of the courthouse on 850 Bryant St., only a 15-minute walk from where they were arrested.
“This feels amazing,” said Jack, one of the 18 defendants. “It’s a giant weight off my shoulders.”
Sadie, another defendant, said the arrest was “super traumatic,” and that her shirt was ripped off during the police encounter. But in the end, she said, this experience “has been a hopeful one, because there’s really smart queer people and allies who are not gonna let that shit fly.”
Both said they only arrived at the party just 10 minutes before the arrests, and they were unaware of any prior dispersal orders. They asked that only their first names be used.
Attorneys and defendants celebrated the win but questioned why it had taken so long.
“All of the facts that led to the dismissal were there for [DA Brooke] Jenkins,” said Jeff Wozniak, one of several defense attorneys on the case. He noted that the same report defense attorneys used to undermine the charges was available to the district attorney’s office before it made the decision to prosecute.
The 18 people arrested lost jobs, missed work and suffered physical injuries, Wozniak said, for “a case that should have never been charged.”
Glad to see them freed! They should never have been charged. Brooke Jenkins is a disgrace. The recall of DA Chesa Boudin was one of the worst mistakes San Francisco voters have made in recent years.
But would they have been dismissed if the defendants were Black or Latino?
Protected classes get outcomes like this more than others.
Agreed. Brooke Jenkins has always and only been a puppet who is openly bought and paid bd appointed for by wealthy Republicans. Vote her out.
It’s getting harder to tell where MAGA ends and billionaire-funded “centrism” begins in San Francisco.
This only keeps happening if there are no consequences for individual officers and brass when they summarily violate people’s rights like this.
Cops have no duty to protect and there are no consequences for cops when they abuse the citizenry.
This is not a symmetrical relationship.
Another entertaining keystone kops inspired revival piece courtesy of Brooke the crooke! The audience is in stitches! Who knows what hilarity will ensue once she takes this act on the road.
Good! Should have been dropped from the beginning and cops disciplined for wasting city money. What a waste of OT and resources. Sick of the cops getting raises and carte blanche to do dumbass shit like this while the rest of the city workers are under austerity measures.
the DA fails again and yet no one is talking recall? hmm.
Brooke Jenkins attacks queer people but won’t prosecute rapists and cops.
Glad things worked out in favor of the defendants. Amazing Jenkins can see out of the black eyes she keeps collecting.