Organizing Violent Protest Prosecutions
What Are We Talking About?
Prosecutions of individuals or groups accused of planning, inciting, or participating in protests that result in violence, property damage, or threats to public safety.
Legal Issues
Balancing First Amendment rights (freedom of speech and assembly) with public order.
Distinguishing between lawful protest and criminal conduct (e.g., rioting, assault).
Charging organizers when violence results or is planned.
Relevant Statutes Commonly Used
18 U.S.C. § 2101 — Rioting (federal anti-riot law)
18 U.S.C. § 231 — Civil disorder (interference with law enforcement)
18 U.S.C. § 372 — Conspiracy to impede or injure officers
18 U.S.C. § 245 — Interference with federally protected activities
State Riot and Disorderly Conduct Statutes
Case Law: Detailed Examples
1. United States v. Timothy Hale-Cusanelli (2020)
Court: District of Columbia
Facts:
Hale-Cusanelli was charged with organizing and participating in the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Charges:
Conspiracy, assault on federal officers, obstruction of Congress.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to over 3 years.
Significance:
Major case linking protest organization to violent breach and law enforcement assaults.
2. United States v. Michael Reinoehl (2020)
Court: Western District of Washington
Facts:
Reinoehl was implicated in organizing violent actions during protests in Portland, including fatal shootings.
Charges:
Unlawful use of a firearm, homicide during civil disorder.
Outcome:
Killed in police encounter before trial.
Significance:
Illustrates prosecution challenges in violent protest contexts.
3. United States v. Derek Chauvin and Co-defendants (2021)
Court: District of Minnesota
Facts:
Following protests over George Floyd’s death, Chauvin was charged with murder, while others faced charges related to organizing violent protests (looting, assault).
Charges:
Assault, destruction of property, inciting riots.
Outcome:
Some convicted; cases highlighted limits of protest vs. violence.
Significance:
Shows distinction between lawful protest and criminal acts within protests.
4. People v. Glenn (2018)
Court: California Superior Court
Facts:
Glenn organized a protest that escalated into violence, including attacks on police officers.
Charges:
Conspiracy to riot, assault on officers.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 5 years.
Significance:
State-level example of charging protest organizers.
5. United States v. Affrunti et al. (2022)
Court: District of Massachusetts
Facts:
Affrunti and others organized a protest that involved violent clashes and property damage in Boston.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit rioting, destruction of property.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to prison.
Significance:
Reinforces federal ability to prosecute organizers for violent protest.
6. People v. Smith (2019)
Court: New York State Supreme Court
Facts:
Smith planned a protest that turned violent, leading to arrests for rioting and assault.
Charges:
Riot, inciting violence.
Outcome:
Pled guilty; sentenced to probation and community service.
Significance:
Demonstrates plea deals in less severe violent protest cases.
Summary of Legal Principles
Organizers can be held criminally responsible if they planned, encouraged, or participated in violence during protests.
The line between protected speech and criminal conduct hinges on intent and actions promoting violence.
Federal statutes allow for conspiracy charges when violence is planned.
Sentences range widely based on harm caused—from probation to multiple years in prison.
Courts carefully consider First Amendment rights but do not protect violent conduct.
RELATED Blog
0 comments