Read time: 2 minutes

Brookfield Had 'No Legal Right' To Eject Occupy Wall Street Protesters From Zuccotti Park

In a legal brief made public yesterday, the NYCLU argues that Brookfield Properties had no legal right to force Occupy Wall Street protesters out of Zuccotti Park on November 15th of last year.

Watch live streaming video from occupynyc at livestream.com

In a legal brief made public yesterday, the NYCLU argues that Brookfield Properties had no legal right to force Occupy Wall Street protesters out of Zuccotti Park on November 15th of last year. The civil liberties group intends to file an amicus brief in support of a protester named Ronnie Nunez, who was arrested when he refused to leave Zuccotti Park after the NYPD raid and eviction. According to the NYCLU, Brookfield had no legal authority to exclude people from the park, which Brookfield is legally required to keep open to the public at all times. . From the NYCLU filing:

City zoning law makes unambiguously clear that private owners must obtain the advance approval of the City Planning Commission (“CPC”) before enforcing any restrictions on public access to a privately owned public space [POPS]. The law also makes clear that before the CPC can authorize any restrictions, there must be strict compliance with important procedural protections that are designed to protect public access.

Since the creation of Zuccotti Park in 1968, the public has had a permanent license to be present. In lieu of CPC approval, Brookfield had no authority to exclude Mr. Nunez or anyone else from Zuccotti Park. Therefore, the accusatory instrument against Mr. Nunez is insufficient and Defendants’ motion to dismiss the information should be granted.

POPS are akin to “an easement held by the public on the owner’s property.” As spaces legally mandated to be open and accessible for the public’s benefit and use, POPS are subject to constitutional protections as traditional public fora under the First Amendment. Indeed, courts have acknowledged that when a space is explicitly designated for public use, like a POPS, it is clear that such areas are “inherently compatible” with First Amendment activity and subject to constitutional protections as traditional public fora.

Mr. Nunez is facing charges of trespassing, obstructing governmental administration and disorderly conduct. His attorney tells the New York Times, "All of those charges have to start with a lawful order, otherwise the cops are just bouncers with badges."

Can you help us out?

For 17 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.

More C&L Coverage

Discussion

New Commenting System

Our comments are now powered by Insticator. In order to comment you will need to create an Insticator account. The process is quick and simple. Please note that the ability to comment with a C&L site account is no longer available.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.

Please Do Not Use the Login Link at the Top of the Site.

In order to comment you must use an Insticator account. To register an account, enter your comment and click the post button. A dialog will then appear allowing you create your account.

We will be retiring our Crooks and Liars user account system in January, 2021.

Thank you.
C&L Team