California: ACLU Urges Court to Declare Use of Pepper Spray Dangerous
and Cruel
8/12/99
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: ACLU Urges CA Appeals Court to Declare Use of Pepper Spray
Dangerous and Cruel
Source: ACLU media release
Status: Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint
Date: August 12, 1999
SAN FRANCISCO, CA--Non-violent environmental protestors who sued
Humboldt County authorities over the use of pepper spray are entitled
to a jury trial, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California told a federal appeals court today.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of the demonstrators,
the ACLU said that a lower court erred in ruling that the application
of pepper spray to nonviolent protestors engaged in civil
disobedience constituted "reasonable force" under the law. On the
basis of that finding, the court dismissed the case after a jury
deadlocked over the matter.
The ACLU argues in its brief that in justifying the denial of a jury
trial, the district court and Humboldt officials overstated the
constitutional authority to use pain compliance on demonstrators
engaged in civil disobedience and understated the harmful impact of
pepper spray.
On three separate occasions during the protest, Humboldt law
enforcement authorities applied Q-tips soaked in pepper spray
directly to the eyes of the protesters, who had linked their hands
inside metal sleeves.
"The ACLU believes that the use of pepper spray as a kind of chemical
cattle prod on nonviolent demonstrators resisting arrest constitutes
excessive force and violates the Constitution," said Margaret C.
Crosby, an ACLU of Northern California staff attorney who wrote the
brief with Police Practices Director John Crew.
"Certainly, a jury should be afforded an opportunity to evaluate this
new experimental use of a chemical weapon."
The friend-of-the-court brief summarizes empirical, scientific and
toxicological research on pepper spray. "Scientific literature
refutes the repeated depiction, by the trial judge and by Humboldt,
that pepper spray is a benign organic substance that causes only
transient discomfort," the ACLU's Crosby said.
"In fact, pepper spray ingredients, alone and in combination with
solvents that create the weapon, have a variety of physiological
effects," she added. "Courts have recognized that pepper spray may be
a dangerous chemical weapon, resulting in liability to government or
private parties, or incarceration to criminal defendants."
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year, in the
context of sentencing guidelines for criminal defendants, that pepper
spray may constitute a dangerous weapon. Federal sentencing
guidelines define a dangerous weapon as "capable of inflicting death
or serious bodily injury," causing "extreme physical pain or the
protracted impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or
mental faculty; requiring medical interventions such as surgery,
hospitalization or physical rehabilitation."
The ACLU brief argues that the use of pepper spray on environmental
demonstrators requires a jury evaluation under established
constitutional standards. The single most important consideration in
assessing reasonable use of force is whether the suspect poses an
immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.
"The Humboldt authorities arrested peaceful demonstrators, seated,
linked and locked into a metal device," Crosby said. "They were
dramatizing their commitment to protecting old-growth redwood trees.
They were not menacing anyone."
Pepper spray weapons - both their active ingredients and their
chemical solvents and propellants -- may have damaging short and
long-term effects on a number of body systems and functions. These
weapons are particularly dangerous for people with compromised health
status and for young people.
"Pepper spray's effects on the respiratory, ophthalmologic, and
neurologic systems may be severe," Crosby added. "Studies also show
that pepper spray may produce carcinogenic effects and disrupt the
body's temperature regulation system."
The ACLU brief details animal studies, research and case studies
involving humans. The report includes incidents of correctional
officers suffering physical injuries during training exercises with
pepper spray; emergency room reports of eye injuries from pepper
spray; children hospitalized after accidental exposure to pepper
spray; spice workers suffering respiratory ailments from long-term
exposure to pepper spray's active ingredients; and cancer rates in
countries with high consumption of hot peppers.
The brief was submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The
name of the case is Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt.
The American Civil Liberties Union