The Assault on Free Speech, Public Assembly, and Dissent

A National Lawyers Guild Report 31
Guild members at the Partnership for Civil Justice obtained an
amateur videotape that shows two men wearing plain clothes, one
with his face was covered with a black ski mask, sifting through the
crowds at the inauguration, assaulting and pepper-spraying
protesters. 73 After pressure and litigation by the PCJ, the District
acknowledged that the two men were on-duty undercover police
officers on an intelligence detail. <strong>The</strong> report on the investigation of
the MPD by the Committee on the Judiciary describes the tape as
showing “Investigator Cumba…[whose] face is hidden by a black ski
mask and a white hood…. holding a can in his right hand. He is seen
walking through the crowd, and he shoves someone out of his way to
his left. In two series of shots he appears to hold the can and spray its
contents at other persons in the crowd….At no time is there any
indication that the officer announced he was a police officer, as is
required by department policy.” 74 PCJ litigation further uncovered
that FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force agents took notes describing
protesters boarding buses coming from other states en route to the
inauguration. Police also monitored activist gatherings, including one
at the First Congregational United Church of Christ.
In its report on the investigation of the MPD’s policy and practice in
handling demonstrations in the District of Columbia, the D.C. City
Council’s Committee on the Judiciary found that the Metropolitan
Police Department has conducted and continues to conduct
surveillance of political organizations to learn about plans for
demonstrations. Such surveillance is conducted through the Internet
and other media and by deploying non-uniformed (“plain clothes,”
“casual clothes,” or undercover) officers to meetings. 75 <strong>The</strong>
Committee found that undercover officers attended meetings and
took part in activities pretending to be activists, using false names
and personal histories and wearing clothes intended to help them fit
in with other activists. 76 Former undercover officers told the
Committee that they were directed to “absorb,” “infiltrate,” or
“burrow” into the organizations. 77 Officers would summarize
information related to an event in an “undercover officer report”
within 24 hours. <strong>The</strong> report would then be transmitted to the MPD’s
Intelligence Unit. Undercover assignments were not just eventlimited,
however; police monitored groups for up to a year, and the
activities monitored exceeded the planning of events. Furthermore,
no guidelines about the constitutionality of surveillance were given
to undercover officers. And although the former undercover officers
felt that their information had prevented disruption during
demonstrations, they testified that they never observed criminal