Dancing fools

I was very sorry to be missing this, as I'm out of DC for the weekend, but not as sorry as I am now--someone just got arrested.

The background: twenty people were at the Jefferson Memorial, dancing to the private groove of their own iPods so as not to disturb anyone. Apparently cops showed up and ordered them to disperse anyway, despite the fact that they were not doing anything obviously illegal. One of the libertarians joyfully (yet tastefully and quietly) celebrating the birthday of a favorite founding father questioned why they should have to move along--at which point one of DC's finest shoved them up against a pillar, cuffed their hands behind their back, and hauled them away.

As a resident of DC, I'm certainly overjoyed to hear that violent crime has fallen to a level where we can spare valuable police resources to fight the silent scourge of . . . dancing. Now that we have no more murders or muggings, it seems to me that we should also be looking at newsboys who smoke, women who attend the theater, and of course, the iniquitous habit of playing cards on the sabbath.

Update Julian Sanchez has more.

I wasn’t aware dancing at a public monument was prohibited by any statute—but given that my friend’s immediate social circle is largely composed of journalists, bloggers, and constitutional lawyers who sue the government for fun, I predict hilarity.

Rule #1 of things like this: know who you're dealing with. Of course, respect for one's civil rights should not be predicated on happening to know a lot of troublemakers with podiums.

Update II Jason Talley offers his account:

First I’d like to make a few things clear. We decided to use iPods to be respectful of other people’s experience at the Jefferson Memorial. No music was heard by anyone other than those wearing headphones. We chose midnight so that we wouldn’t disturb anyone. There were about six other people there that were not with us or the police. If you were one of these people I’d like to hear from you to get your account of what happened.

Perhaps six minutes into the event, security tried to stop us and kick us out of the memorial. Most of the Jefferson fans questioned the officers to try to understand what authority they citing to use force against us. Unfortunately I wasn’t near the “Jefferson 1” so I can’t tell you what she did or didn’t do but she was hauled away, handcuffed, in a police van and charged with disorderly conduct.

So in the 2008 version of the USA you cannot dance at the Jefferson Memorial without being disorderly it seems.

Radley Balko has a similar story.

Everyone I spoke with says there was no noise, there were no threats, and no laws broken (the park police I spoke with–including the arresting officer (who, oddly enough, denied to me that he was the arresting officer)–declined to say why she had been arrested).

The police refused to answer any questions, referring all calls to the communication number of the Park Police, which at this hour is closed. They also refused to give their badge numbers.

I’ll post some video tomorrow morning of two flash mobbers who say she was doing nothing at all–she was barely even dancing. Her crime was apparently to ask “why?” when the park police told the group they had to disperse. Note too that this was at around midnight. No one was bumping into tourists, or obstructing anyone’s way. I guess the only conclusion, here, is that it’s apparently illegal to dance on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial–even with headphones. You know, post 9-11 world and all. Harmless fun will be interpreted in the most threatening context imaginable.

As Julian notes, the problem here is not that one of my friends, an educated white girl, had to spend five hours or so being harassed by the police. It is that the police think that questioning orders constitutes disorderly conduct. And that the result of questioning them is probably a lot more than moderate harassment when the questioner is not an educated white girl with a lot of camera toting friends.

Update III More from Peter Suderman.

Comments

This is really pathetic. It's like the police were deliberately trying to hand the Chinese an incident with which to destroy Americans' moral authority if we try to object to police repression of demonstrators at the Olympics.

Of course nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to dance at national memorials while listening to MP3 players, and to read such a right into the penumbra of the right to freedom of association would probably be "facetious" or "liberal judicial activism" or something. Jerks.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 13, 2008 2:29 AM

"but given that my friend’s immediate social circle is largely composed of journalists, bloggers, and constitutional lawyers who sue the government for fun, I predict hilarity."

Given that his friend's circle is probably composed of folks who smoke pot, illegally download music, and are guilty of assorted other nuisance crimes, I predict hilarity as well, when the piss off the D.C. police force.

Posted by Fred | April 13, 2008 2:57 AM

Fred Says: "I predict hilarity as well, when the piss off the D.C. police force."

Such as it is, anyway.

Posted by PaulJC | April 13, 2008 3:37 AM

One person's spontaneous joyous moment is another person's threatening mob.

Hmmm. I wonder if there are actual visiting hours for the various monuments in DC, and which types of spontaneous groups of people we really want to see bopping around at midnight, and what range of activities should be permissible, and how late into the night we want to allow them to go.

Or is it a special thing for certain well employed connected types only?

Posted by Finn | April 13, 2008 4:10 AM

The miracle of Google allows these and many more questions to be answered with the click of a button, if you're one of those "connected" types: The Jefferson Memorial is open to the public 24-hours a day. Though, of course, if you want to bop around without inconveniencing tourists, you might want to do so at an hour where almost nobody else is there -- say, midnight.

Posted by Julian Sanchez | April 13, 2008 4:21 AM

Brooksfoe,

That's right. We need the Supreme Court to establish a right to asking cops questions without being taken in. The current Bill of Rights fails to provide adequate protection to innocent people against police misconduct. However, discovering an absolute right to dancing to MP3 is going to fix all that.
What was it you called the DC cops?

Posted by Joe | April 13, 2008 4:50 AM

OMG!! I didn't know that Megan and her libertarian friends were actually DFH!!! Welcome, Megan!

Posted by rebmarks | April 13, 2008 7:28 AM

Libertarians celebrating a notorious slave-shagger? It's just a pity that the police don't celebrate irony.

Posted by dearieme | April 13, 2008 7:32 AM

Police officers tend to know very little about the laws they're supposedly enforcing, and they don't seem to care much, either. My local paper had a column today consisting of four questions about carrying weapons, with answers provided by the local police department. They answered three of the questions by saying, essentially, "We don't know what the law is, and if we don't like what you're doing, we might arrest you." The answer to the other question was, "There's no law on the books that covers this, and we might arrest you if you do it." And this was something they had to prepare in advance, presumably with no time pressure.

Posted by Alan Gunn | April 13, 2008 8:39 AM

Finally, what the world's been waiting for: "Don't you know who I am?!" libertarianism.

Posted by Stay Classy | April 13, 2008 9:10 AM

I don't presume to know why the park police cuffed and, er, removed the one participant.

Nevertheless, it wouldn't have hurt anyone if the organizers had asked themselves in advance how people unlike them might have interpreted their spontaneous midnight celebration. Words like "odd" might come to mind, as might "suspicious" and "intoxicated."

Remember, the police have to make a snap judgment about what to do. They tend to err on the side of caution.

Of course, this, too, leaves plenty of room for error. It could be that the celebrants were as entirely harmless as described here, but the "tourists" visiting the monument were actually murder suspects with outstanding arrest warrants. Unbeknown to the police, the presumed tourists planned to leave the monument and perpetrate a violent home invasion later in the night...

Posted by MarkG | April 13, 2008 9:13 AM

Seems like a pittance doesn't it? Arrested for "disorderly conduct." And at the Thomas Freaking Jefferson memorial, of all places.

Didn't Thomas Jefferson commit the ultimate act of disorderly conduct?

The good news is that we're a nation of laws. It's against the law for the police to falsely arrest anyone. It's also against the law for them to withhold public arrest records.

The bad news is that few have the cajones of THomas Jefferson in this day and age to sue the Washington D.C. park police thugs for false prisonment.

We need to trim a few of the branches from the tree of liberty, folks.

Posted by solutionguy | April 13, 2008 9:18 AM

I support this police action.

Dancing is and base and low form of entertainment and may encourage the Negros to revolt (as they are known to enjoy it also).

Posted by Blue | April 13, 2008 9:20 AM

The DC cops get, and deserve, a lot of bad raps.

Yet this was the Federales, the Park Police. Are they one step up, or one step down, from the DC police?

Posted by Bill Chernish | April 13, 2008 9:33 AM

Under the law the police are above the law. When a policeman yells at you He is above the law. He is God. You must do whatever He says. You may not ask questions. His Word is Law.

Posted by sol vason | April 13, 2008 9:45 AM

Um. If the Memorial is closed and people refuse to leave, why NOT arrest them for disorderly conduct? Isn't this a microcosm of libertarianism philosophy? Weren't these libertarians confusing license with liberty?

The place was closed. Come on.

Posted by Jeff | April 13, 2008 9:52 AM

The First Continental Congress fretted muchly about the evils of public dancing. It certainly saved them from the burden of worrying about trivia, like how to raise money to pay Gen. Washington's troops. Fortunately for all involved, we didn't have police forces back then.

Posted by tom swift | April 13, 2008 9:57 AM

The Memorial was not closed, as ten seconds Googling would have told you.

Moron.

Posted by Paco Wové | April 13, 2008 10:04 AM

Jeff exposes the fact that like many antilibertarians he is both an idiot and too lazy to use Google. How typical.

MarkG exposes that like many antilibertarians he at the core of his being believes that anyone who commits any action that would be out of place in a Hopper painting should know in advance that they will be arrested for it.

Perhaps, MarkG, whatever the purpose of this action and whatever questions the organizers may have asked themselves, it at least demonstrated that the Park Police is composed of worthless bastards who define any momentary deviation from rote and mechanical conformity as "disorderly conduct".

Posted by Brian | April 13, 2008 10:19 AM

I don't know what's surprising about this.

This administration has used the bogeyman of Terra to create authoritarian policies, and to remove constitutional protections from Americans, as a matter of course. There are now 'free speech zones' set up well away from appearances by elected officials. Petty bureaucrats at airports can order anyone strip searched, and can deny travel to anyone on their own say-so. Police infiltrated knitting circles in New York before the Republican convention. Communications are monitored by the NSA, using the same techniques the Chinese governmnt uses.

Posted by jayackoryd | April 13, 2008 10:23 AM

Mr. Wove wrote,

The Memorial was not closed, as ten seconds Googling would have told you. Moron.

I see the reasonableness of his first sentence. There are different senses of 'closed.' The memorial is closed to certain kinds of group events. Group dancing outside the hours of park ranger supervision may well be one of them.

As for his second sentence, Mr. Wove is shown to be an impetuous ass.

Posted by Jeff | April 13, 2008 10:29 AM

Huh. From the Memorial's permit-page above:

"National Mall & Memorial Parks is a unique and bustling park visited by over 25 million visitors per year and issuing approximately 3000 permits per year. As such a permit is required for many activities to assure that various activities will not conflict with each other or with general visitor activities. Specific areas within the individual memorials are considered restricted space. For more information please contact the Park Programs office at 202.619.7225."

So... there are "group activities" that require a permit, but they won't tell you what they are? How are you supposed to know whether you need to call for a permit?

That said, "showing up with 20 friends" is manifestly not one of the aforementioned permit-requiring activities. Presumably this is the case even when your friends all have iPods. So I'm wondering how much bounce in one's step is permissible before you cross the line into dancing, requiring park ranger supervision or intervention by John Lithgow.

Posted by Julian Sanchez | April 13, 2008 10:41 AM

Didn't Thomas Jefferson commit the ultimate act of disorderly conduct?

No, those of the Founders who actually fought get that honor.

Posted by guineapigfury | April 13, 2008 10:44 AM

I think someone said Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Posted by curmudgeonly troll | April 13, 2008 10:45 AM

(And yes, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that)

Posted by curmudgeonly troll | April 13, 2008 10:48 AM

Whether they were a group participating in a group activity or not, please tell me what real harm they were doing? What happened to tolerance of people and their behavior? Why is it that the burden lies on individuals to explain their activities and not the state? The problem is also that there are now so many laws (which we all break at some point) that are arbitrarily in-forced. Not far from totalitarianism now is it?

Live free or die!

Posted by booboo1 | April 13, 2008 10:51 AM

I think a peaceful gathering at midnight on every Saturday from now on is in order. I predict that the government will change the rules to ban protests there once this starts.

I can't think of a better way to re-enforce the Founding Fathers views than to start the push back at the steps of the man who expressly demanded we do it.

Posted by muffler | April 13, 2008 10:55 AM

What is most damaging and scary for me is the fact that a pattern is emerging. Someone protests at a political event or speech, they're arrested on bogus charges, and then quickly enough the charges are dropped. Then people say "The charges are dropped, what's the big deal?" The big deal is that the protesters' free speech has been curtailed; dropping the charges is an admission that the activity wasn't illegal, but hey, we shut them up, so we got what we wanted. And it keeps happening. People get arrested for wearing t-shirts or holding signs. Arresting with no intent of actual prosecution is becoming a major problem.

Posted by Freddie | April 13, 2008 10:57 AM

I'll gladly take the other side on this issue.

You allow silent dancing, how far behind that are mimes? What next, a mime pretending to fry eggs in front of the Kennedy perpertual flame?

These dancers could have backed into and knocked over an old lady. The defenses of consent and assumption of risk to involuntary contact on a dance floor is predicated on the fact that it takes place ON A DANCE FLOOR. This was not a dance floor.

I say they were being disruptive and were asked to leave and refused. Lock 'em up.

Posted by edh | April 13, 2008 11:03 AM

Words like "odd" might come to mind, as might "suspicious" and "intoxicated."

Jesus.

We can't allow government agents, at whatever level, to be in the business of determining what they feel is "odd" or "suspicious", nor can we allow them to decide that that behavior enables them to arrest without charge. The police have to enforce actual laws, and they have to have just cause to do so. "Intoxicated" is an empirical claim and one that can be backed up by evidence. There are specific statutes telling the police how they should determine if people are intoxicated or not. Dancing with Ipods at the Jefferson memorial as part of a organized group is not one of them.

Posted by Freddie | April 13, 2008 11:06 AM

So... there are "group activities" that require a permit, but they won't tell you what they are? How are you supposed to know whether you need to call for a permit? That said, "showing up with 20 friends" is manifestly not one of the aforementioned permit-requiring activities (Sanchez).

Mr. Sanchez, the website you quoted contains the answer. You need only call the aformentioned telephone number, "specific areas within the individual memorials are considered restricted space. For more information please contact the Park Programs office at 202.619.7225."

That said, "showing up with 20 friends" is manifestly not one of the aforementioned permit-requiring activities (Sanchez).

That's simply not clear in a city with property crime rates as high as DC's, during hours without park ranger supervision.

License is not liberty, sir.

Posted by Jeff | April 13, 2008 11:10 AM

I was actually reading something very similar last night in Peter Moskos's "Cop in the Hood." He was patrolling Baltimore's Eastern District, but he says that one of the main things that a cop will do is always assert the right to control public spaces. So, on a drug corner, if a cop demands that everyone disperse, he will force them to, even if they aren't doing anything obviously illegal. They use charges like loitering and disorderly conduct so that they have a valid cause to arrest people who refuse to follow their orders.

It's not immediately clear why park police would be treating the Jefferson Memorial like a drug corner. Could just be that the cops are tough guys who like to boss people around. Or maybe these particular cops usually patrol tougher areas, like the Mall at night, and usually have valid reasons to want to disperse people without clear cause?

Either way, pretty clearly inappropriate as it happened.

Posted by Robert Beard | April 13, 2008 11:10 AM

I apologize for interrupting this discussion, but if this incident in D.C. had involved young Blacks rather than cuddly libertarians, it is unlikely that Megan McArdle could have managed to devote any of her time to the story (or she might have typed out a blurb in defense of the D.C. police). Unfortunately, this incident involving the D.C. police is routine, but Megan McArdle does not want this incident to overshadow her concern for the Iraqi refugees who are unable to come to the United States. Those who are upset by this incident in D.C. should show some respect for Megan McArdle by directing their attention to the Iraqi refugees.

With reference to the response of the United States to the plight of Iraqi refugees, Megan McArdle stated three days ago: "(F)or the first time in my life, I'm utterly ashamed of my country." Normally, a libertarian such as Megan McArdle would tell these Iraqi refugees to channel some rugged individualism and pick themselves up by their own sandal straps. Of course, individuals in the United States are free to donate to the Iraqi refugees. Because Megan McArdle entreats U.S. taxpayers to help the Iraqi refugees, it would be interesting to know if she exhibits this same zeal for the welfare of the Iraqi refugees in her personal donations to charity. This issue is the only issue that ever made Megan McArdle ashamed of her country, and she probably will want to tell us how much she has donated to the Iraqi refugees during each of the last five yerrs. Or maybe because she chose journalism rather than a successful career in high finance, Megan McArdle thinks that she has already given at the office.

Megan McArdle states: "I agree with the people who say that the muggers are morally culpable than the person who gave the directions," and it could not be expected that she was going to say that the muggers are "lessally" culpable than the person who gave the bad directions. One thing that was not clear regarding Megan McArdle's comparison of a Iraq to a mugging in an alley: Is she the person with the bad advice, or is she the mugger? Just kidding; we all know she is the person with the bad advice.

One more caution: Megan McArdle has expressed her disapproval of name-calling. I have already been called ignorant and slow by Megan McArdle's fan-base, and I can survive these personal attacks, but Ms. McArdle has been upset by such behavior from her defenders.

Posted by Blaine Kinsey | April 13, 2008 11:17 AM

Curmudgeonly Troll beat me to the most appropriate quote.

I think midnight dancing at the Jefferson Memorial should be a nightly or weekly event.

Posted by Yancey Ward | April 13, 2008 11:23 AM

Damn. It's a shame the cops didn't have 2x4s and didn't beat the "educated white girl" about the skull out with them.

That's how a real libertarian deals with those who question orders. And illegal wars.

Posted by beat on the brat with a baseball bat | April 13, 2008 11:24 AM

It's not immediately clear why park police would be treating the Jefferson Memorial like a drug corner (Beard).

Were they, Mr. Beard? You're using loaded language, but on the principle of charity I'll take it seriously. You want to question the principle upon which there could be public concern over a gathering of youths at the memorial. I agree that it isn't immediately clear, but the answer emerges with a smidgen of reflection. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial is a national treasure in a city with rampant property crime rates.

The concern is legitimate.

Posted by Jeff | April 13, 2008 11:32 AM

FREE BROOKE!
FREE BROOKE!
FREE BROOKE!

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain | April 13, 2008 11:32 AM

Of course nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to dance at national memorials while listening to MP3 players, and to read such a right into the penumbra of the right to freedom of association would probably be "facetious" or "liberal judicial activism" or something. Jerks.

Posted by brooksfoe

Don't be silly. There's a big difference between something that's not in the constitution at all and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". The constitution Jefferson helped establish is too important to simply make it say whatever whatever happens to be popular at the time.

Remember, "penumbras" can take away rights as easily as grant them. Remember Gonzalez v. Raich, or Wickard v. Filburn?

Posted by Matt | April 13, 2008 11:44 AM

Constitutional dudes:

The Constitution does not enumerate all the rights of the people, it enumerates the powers of the government! Isn't there a part in it that says to the effect, "if we did not say it, the power/right belongs to the states and then to the people"? The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a failsafe for when the bureaucrats ignored the implied freedom in the rest of the Constitution. I mean, after all who could not understand the plain, direct, and simple English in the Bill of Rights? :-)

Posted by waitaminute | April 13, 2008 11:45 AM

Here are the permit requirements, from the Code of Federal Regulations, 36CFR7.96.

First, section (g) defines what a "demonstration" is

(g) Demonstrations and special events--(1) Definitions. (i) The term ``demonstrations'' includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers.

But it is (g)(2)(i) that says that no permit was required:

(i) Demonstrations involving 25 persons or fewer may be held without a permit provided that the other conditions required for the issuance of a permit are met and provided further that the group is not merely an extension of another group already availing itself of the 25-person maximum under this provision or will not unreasonably interfere with other demonstrations or special events.

You can read it all yourself here: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/03jul20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/julqtr/pdf/36cfr7.96.pdf

By the way, if you go all the way down to (3)(ii)(C), it says that demonstration are never allowed at the Jefferson Memorial, except for his official birthday celebration. These folks were just jealous of possible competition!

Posted by Ahcuah | April 13, 2008 11:57 AM

I'm assuming at this point that Jeff is engaging in parody, though I suppose it's not totally impossible he's serious, which would be depressing.

Posted by Julian Sanchez | April 13, 2008 12:00 PM

If this was fiction I'd say this story was a ripoff of the Plain Janes by Cecil Castellucci and Jim Rugg.

This book is about a bunch of high-school girls who get together to sneak out at night and create artistic, and mostly harmless acts of 'vandalism'. (Rearranging construction debris into pyramids, putting soap into fountains to make bubbles, etc.)

The authorities overreact at every step. At times I think the possible flaw in the story is the degree to which certain authority figures seem to take it all too seriously. Then news stories like this one come along, reminding me that the book had it all to true to life.

Posted by Shawn Levasseur | April 13, 2008 12:03 PM

Those (who are not enlightened progressives) who read the comments will notice the shift in attitude among the modern liberal mindset in the last 3 decades. What started out as a counter-culture movement, aligned against state control over societal attitudes, has turned into an obsequious pro-government position (while vehemently hating the current administration, it is the personality and their choices that bother them, not the use of power over others per se). When you get your wish with regard to social redistribution schemes, which of course requires an all-encompassing government to centralize the "management of resources", you then can't bite the hand that feeds you by criticizing the Leviathan. If people question the State when it comes to late-night dancing, they may question the State when it comes to a 40+% (and growing) tax rate.

Posted by Esher Fern Gamble | April 13, 2008 12:05 PM

Yah, yah, yah...

Of course, as far as I can see, no one has determined whether or not said young woman was out to provoke a reaction from the authorities.

Crap like this tends to up the noise and lower the signal when discussing whether or not we have the jackboots of authority coming down on our necks.

Posted by Moose | April 13, 2008 12:13 PM

...and while I'm being curmudgeonly, whats does being an "educated white girl" have to do with this?

Would it be OK if the park police arrested a piss soaked black homeless man for dancing *without* an iPod?

This stinks more and more like a self-indulgent group of poli-sci studets version of agitprop.

Posted by Moose | April 13, 2008 12:19 PM

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests -- we did. . . ."

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain | April 13, 2008 12:21 PM

Megan's final paragraph contains a logical fallacy. Just because one thing is LESS important than another thing does not make the first thing UN-important.

She seems to be arguing that a) murder is the most serious crime; and b) all less-serious crimes should not be investigated until all murders are resolved. By this logic, rape is less serious than murder, and thus rape cases should not be investigated unless all murders have been solved. Similarly kidnapping, home invasion, assault and battery, etc. are also less serious than murder, and thus unworthy of police attention.

The next time you get a speeding ticket, try complaining that there are other, more serious crimes and that the officer shouldn't be wasting his time on you, and see how far it gets you.

None of this should be read as a defense of the police action in this case. If there was no crime, than the woman should not have been arrested. On the other hand, if there WAS a crime, then the woman SHOULD be arrested, regardless of whether there other, more serious crimes are going unpunished.

Posted by Gene Dillenburg | April 13, 2008 12:27 PM

MarkG exposes that like many antilibertarians he at the core of his being believes that anyone who commits any action that would be out of place in a Hopper painting should know in advance that they will be arrested for it.

In public place and often despite appearances to the contrary, there are certain unspoken behavioral standards -- "expected behavior." You can certainly choose to dance outside these standards, so to speak, but the response by others may not consist of politely ignoring you. Others may feel threatened by what you do, even if you mean no harm. You cannot assume that others know you personally, can see or correctly interpret your motives -- even if you announce them in advance.

There is still an appropriate time and place for everything. And holding an unusual, unique performance with a clutch of friends at the focal point of a public park at midnight is a poor choice of venue. The police had the discretion whether or not to let it proceed; the activity may potentially have made other visitors feel threatened in some way, and the police also have to look out for those other visitors -- the ones night dancers either thought would be a like-minded audience or about whose approval they did not care, preferring instead to shock and offend those who disapproved. In the latter case, the performers arguably got what they had coming to them.

Perhaps, MarkG, whatever the purpose of this action and whatever questions the organizers may have asked themselves, it at least demonstrated that the Park Police is composed of worthless bastards who define any momentary deviation from rote and mechanical conformity as "disorderly conduct".

Um, there's also the Thomas Jefferson National Forest that they might have chosen as a venue. Or perhaps the roads around Monticello. Hell, if they'd held their ceremony on the grounds of Jefferson's University of Virginia, others probably would have joined in, as the behavior might have seemed anything other than out of the ordinary.

It's safe to assume they would never have chosen to iDance in Jeferson Nat'l Forest with the squirrels, deer, and bears. No, leaving the safety of the urban setting -- the safety assured by the police you denounce -- was also something the performers relied on. It was the behavior they expected from society to provide them with a safe venue.

Posted by MarkG | April 13, 2008 12:30 PM

"No, leaving the safety of the urban setting -- the safety assured by the police you denounce"

LOL. Someone needs to check the crime stats for DC, and compare them to the crime rates at national parks.

Posted by Esher Fern Gamble | April 13, 2008 12:34 PM

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time getting too upset about this. Of course police use a lot of discretion about how to enforce laws and safety. As Robert Beard pointed out, "maintaining control" is absolutely essential for doing so, and is not done by simply enforcing the laws.

Of course, this means that (horrors!) discretion is involved rather than strict adherence to the letter of the law. And of course, having discretion means that it *will* get abused. What's the solution? Pushback. And I can guarantee there's going to be a fair amount of pushback on this issue :-). (And why simply ignoring it is wrong.)

As usual, the only thing that would be worse than allowing for discretion that will occasionally be abused is not allowing any discretion at all. We've all dealt with organizations that have removed any discretion on the part of the employees (in order to avoid any possible abuse), and we all know what sort of massive inefficiency and bureaucratic hell it is to deal with them.

So, I accept that the police will have to deal with many issues in a not-strictly legal fashion and also accept that pushback in the form of adverse publicity and disciplinary actions will have to regularly occur in order to stop the police's natural incentives to take this discretion too far.

No conspiracy - no society becoming wildly authoritarian. Simply the overshoot followed by the correcting mechanism that occurs in any working system.

Posted by Tom West | April 13, 2008 12:37 PM

I am always continually amazed by all the patriotic talk about how we are a "free country", but as soon as somebody does something a little bit different, they all come out of the woodwork to justify police state action.

A freedom to be just like everybody else is not "freedom".

Posted by Ahcuah | April 13, 2008 12:38 PM

I know the people in question, and no one was trying to provoke a reaction from the authorities; they're not the rabble rousing types. I've probably attended more demonstrations than all of them together. They were just dancing. When they were told to stop dancing, the person in question asked "Why", and was arrested for doing so. I hope that questioning the government is not yet a federal offense.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 13, 2008 12:41 PM

The other Jeff sucks.

Posted by The Real Jeff | April 13, 2008 12:42 PM

I suspect the cops were offended by the sight of youth having having fun at a national monument. Quite understandable. Ask for names and badge numbers. No guarantees, but I've seen this work wonders.

Posted by Gary Ogletree | April 13, 2008 12:44 PM

Crap like this tends to up the noise and lower the signal when discussing whether or not we have the jackboots of authority coming down on our necks.

Posted by Moose | April 13, 2008 12:13 PM

X2

Posted by MEH | April 13, 2008 12:45 PM

Someone needs to check the crime stats for DC, and compare them to the crime rates at national parks.

I'm sure there were many places in DC that they would not have chosen for dancing with their ears plugged -- day or night. And I believe the Jefferson Memorial to be a national park. ;-)

Posted by MarkG | April 13, 2008 12:45 PM

I may have missed someone making this point, but the DC Metropolitan Police are not the United States Park Police. The Park Police would have been the ones doing any arresting at a federal monument.

Please be sure you sue the correct department for false arrest.

Posted by Nathan | April 13, 2008 12:47 PM

the activity may potentially have made other visitors feel threatened in some way, and the police also have to look out for those other visitors -- the ones night dancers either thought would be a like-minded audience or about whose approval they did not care, preferring instead to shock and offend those who disapproved.

"Shock and offend"? It was just a dozen or so 20-somethings silently dancing to their Ipods. I've seen photos of the event -- all the dancers were decently dressed, and none of them appeared to be humping and grinding.

Nevertheless, the lady was not arrested for dancing, but merely for questioning the police action. I suppose she might have shown some attitude, but it's not a crime to arch one's eyebrows while asking "why?"

Some of the commenters who are disparaging the arrestee would probably be screaming "injustice!" or "fascism!" if the arrested person had been protesting on behalf on some pet political cause, instead of merely having fun.

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain | April 13, 2008 12:48 PM

Well said, Moose.

Only in this country can one march in the streets of the capital obnoxiously protesting "the oppression inherent in the system" without fear of retribution.

I'll bet a courtesy call to the Park Police to ask if such an event would be considered disruptive or require a permit is too much to ask.

If I really wanted to dance at midnight with 20 friends at a National monument undisturbed, I'd have made that call.

If I wanted to show up at Midnight and dance with 20 friends just to see what happened, I wouldn't bitch when the police aren't amused. There are lots of ways to deal with Police when responding to an order to disburse. "Why" isn't one of them, unless you want to make a scene. She knew why: She just didn't think she could be busted for it.

Its late, and 20 people dancing to no apparent music at a National Monument at midnight requires somebody be dispatched to investigate. Meanwhile other areas of the Park are unprotected. Thanks for giving the real vandals and criminals some breathing room.

Posted by darkjethro | April 13, 2008 12:48 PM

I just hope at least one of them had the Footloose soundtrack on their iPod.

Posted by JDav | April 13, 2008 12:58 PM

It was not long ago that there was a rash of assaults and muggings in the area of the memorials and Washington Monument. There was an outcry for the Park Police to provide more patrols and enforce the laws.

I suppose it depends upon what laws you wnat enforced.

Posted by davod | April 13, 2008 1:25 PM

"I'll bet a courtesy call to the Park Police to ask if such an event would be considered disruptive or require a permit is too much to ask.... There are lots of ways to deal with Police when responding to an order to disburse. 'Why' isn't one of them, unless you want to make a scene."

I hear if you fill out a form in triplicate, you can apply for the return of your testicles. Be sure to ask nicely.

Posted by Julian Sanchez | April 13, 2008 1:28 PM

I hear if you fill out a form in triplicate, you can apply for the return of your testicles.

Har, har! People's Republic of Korea, here we come.

Or was it, If you can't do the time, don't commit the, er, crime...

If it's any consolation, a now outed authoritarian apologist like myself will spend the next 48 hours or so in home detention for the purpose of doing my taxes. This is the punishment we citizens receive for the infraction called "gainful employment." Then I'll dance a jig down to the post office to send the authorities a check to cover the pecuniary fine for same infraction.

Posted by MarkG | April 13, 2008 1:36 PM

Finally, what the world's been waiting for: "Don't you know who I am?!" libertarianism.

Posted by Stay Classy

Bwahahaha! Help! We're being oppressed!

Posted by LWM | April 13, 2008 1:44 PM

"There are lots of ways to deal with Police when responding to an order to disburse. "Why" isn't one of them, unless you want to make a scene. She knew why: She just didn't think she could be busted for it."

Why is a perfectly valid question that should not get you arrested by the police. The police should be able to explain why you have to disperse, if they can't they shouldn't resort to just arresting people. The police should have headed over there, asked nicely what they were doing and then went on their way after seeing they were completely harmless. It would have A) Been the right thing to do and B) wasted far less time on 20 people who weren't breaking the law.

I understand that they looked suspicious over there, but 5 seconds listening to them would have nearly anybody thinking they were harmless, but weird people.

Posted by JordanT | April 13, 2008 1:46 PM

I wasn’t aware dancing at a public monument was prohibited by any statute—but given that my friend’s immediate social circle is largely composed of journalists, bloggers, and constitutional lawyers who sue the government for fun, I predict hilarity.

You can predict all the hilarity you want, Julian. The hilarity will ensue the minute we get to see the looks on your friends faces when they find out that there is nothing in the BoR that makes an order from the police a "negotiation" if the cops are in the mood to be dicks. You've been right wing so long it looks like left to you and you got the gummint you asked for, you dumb fucks. Radley Balko! What a schmuck.

Any one of you libtardian geniuses got a handy definition of police, and I don't mean from a dictionary, something more robust and comprehensive, academic? I thought so.

Posted by LWM | April 13, 2008 1:54 PM

LWM,

start here: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=night-watchman+state

also, to be clear, the Police State, runamok, is hardly anything resembling 'libertatian'

Posted by MEH | April 13, 2008 1:59 PM

Posted by JordanT

Now who's the dingbat hippie?

Cop says you go, you go. Period. No discussion, no debate, no argument. That's reserved for barricaded armed suspects with hostages. Probably the sense of entitlemnt and arrogance common among this group of right wing libertarians pissed the cops off. They just didn't like you. Can't say I blame them much. They found you in contempt of cop. No reprieve. Good luck with the judge. Snort!

Posted by LWM | April 13, 2008 2:00 PM

It's nice to see Stacy McCain here. Apparently he has a lot of free time on his hands since the Washington Times shitklanned his pale ass.

Stacy's a fake libertarian, as evidenced by his belief that "the civil rights movement, to a great extent, represented a direct assault on tradition and law." A true libertarian might agree with that statement, but would offer it as praise, not with a tear in his eye and sheet over his head.

Posted by Libertarian in the Hood (aka BurkeCalhounDabney) | April 13, 2008 2:06 PM

MEH,

I majored in CJ. I know the definition.

The key phrase is "non-negotiable, coercive lethal force in accordance with situational exigencies" and the rank and file cop on the beat has a greater degree of discretion in the performance and dischrge of his duties than do his superiors in theirs. In that respect, it is an upside down world from a corporation or law firm.

This is not a police state. If it is, it is the first one on the planet that more people are trying to get into than get out of. It is a National Surveillance/Security state. But that's another kettle of fish.

Posted by LWM | April 13, 2008 2:07 PM

Anyway, I'm sympathetic, but I couldn't resist a little Schadenfreude. I'm only human. Back to your kvetching unmolested. Hopefully the mood of LE, and the nation, will loosen up as we get away from the current regime and its after effects but next time, do this at lunch time on weekday or something. Middle of the night is just asking for it.

Posted by LWM | April 13, 2008 2:14 PM

LWM sez Cop says you go, you go. Period. No discussion, no debate, no argument.

You of course apply that same rule to anti-capitalist, anti-globalism demonstraters, right?

Posted by juris imprudent | April 13, 2008 2:15 PM

The Jefferson Memorial at midnight is a fun place. In fact, I recommend to anyone visiting DC to go to the Lincoln, Jefferson and Vietnam memorials late at night. The park rangers aren't so busy, and they have some great stories--and time to tell them.

But I understand why they might be worried about 20 people showing up at midnight and dancing to inaudible music. Remember, the rangers didn't know what was going on. They have to keep peace and order, and here they have a bunch of people acting strangely.

The rangers are outnumbered. They're worried. They don't know what's going to happen next.

Sure, the dancers knew, and had no intention to cause serious harm. But they didn't share that information with the rangers. They didn't call in advance, or even talk to the rangers on the spot.

"But they don't have to!" Well, not really. But as any serious, experienced protestor will tell you, you DO talk to the cops in advance--because not doing so may get you hurt.

And walking up to cops who are busy making arrests and asking, "But why?" is just plain dumb. It's like asking a quarterback, two seconds into the play, why he chose that play. He's a little busy right then, and he's not going to appreciate the distraction.

I'm sure the courts will dismiss all charges. That's why we have courts, which are deliberative bodies. They have the time in which to deliberate. Cops, on the spot and in the heat of the moment, have to react.

Posted by Gordon | April 13, 2008 2:21 PM

This is worthy of a good, old-fashioned Nixon-era march on Washington protest like we used to have. But it's just one of thousands. Don't you wonder how many others are as frustrated and pissed off at our governments as we?

Posted by SamIam | April 13, 2008 2:21 PM

--Cop says you go, you go. Period. No discussion, no debate, no argument.-- LWM

This _is_ how the real world works, in practice. Even if the cop is acing totally illegally, if you and he argue, you lose automatically. Any option that would enable you to 'win' on the scene is itself illegal.

(For ex: if you resist a cop who acting illegally with force, you've _both_ broken the law unless it was self-defense of your life, or something that fundamental.)

If the cop is seriously out of line, and you have witnesses or videotaped evidence or whatever, you _might_ be able to get him in trouble afterwards, but you still lose on the scene.

That's the way things have always been and probably will always be. Which is not to say that we couldn't demand higher standards of training and behavior from the police, and if the public really wants them it'll happen.

But you still lose if you argue with a cop.

Posted by HC | April 13, 2008 2:22 PM

Someone should ask the DA in the Duke rape case about how easy it is to hide behind the discretion of one's office when one screws with the wrong people.

It may be "Don't you know who I am?" libertarianism, but hey - at least somebody can break these f*^&ers when they need to be broken.

Hopefully someone will decide to ride this park police d*%^head to an early retirement with every legal form of harassment a lawyerly mind can think up.

Posted by Brian | April 13, 2008 2:35 PM

The police had the discretion whether or not to let it proceed; the activity may potentially have made other visitors feel threatened in some way, and the police also have to look out for those other visitors -- the ones night dancers either thought would be a like-minded audience or about whose approval they did not care, preferring instead to shock and offend those who disapproved. In the latter case, the performers arguably got what they had coming to them.

In the absence of audible music, they weren't even really "dancing". Without music, they were just "walking funny".

If I don't like the way you walk, can I declare myself "threatened" and have you beaten with truncheons?

Guess what: I don't give a rat's ass about anyone who would feel "threatened", or feel "shocked or offended" by people moving strangely. Get different feelings.

And the entire point here is that the police should not have the discretion to decide whether or not to let it proceed. I don't really believe in "time, place or manner" restrictions on public assembly, for the simple reason that no such qualification on the right of assembly is described in the Bill of Rights, however closely our corrupt judiciary squints at it. But let's say I did accept that you could place a restriction on public assembly in order to facilitate access to our public spaces by everyone. In that instance, you'd have to show me that these people in some way damaged the access of others to the monument in a way materially greater than they would have just by walking around and looking at things like the "normal" visitors. And you can't possibly show me that.

Buses unload groups of 45 people at these monuments every few minutes all day every day. Those "groups" then get out and "walk around" the monument. This was a "group" of 20 people who "silly walked" around the monument. No permit should be necessary for the latter if none is necessary for the former.

Posted by Brian | April 13, 2008 2:46 PM

Here's how it should have gone down...

Park Police: Hi, what are you doing?
Citizen: Hi officer, we're silently dancing to celebrate the third president's birthday.
PP: Ok. Well, there have been some muggings in this area late at night but I don't think a mugger's going to take on all of you, so just be careful. And don't trip on the steps. Have a nice night.

Posted by David | April 13, 2008 2:48 PM

Well at least the young lady is probably comfortably home and now we know that if sufficiently harmful or even dangerous people (M13 DC chapter) decided to flash mob, they too would feel the park police fist. Hopefully.

This whole event kind of reads like it should be on "Stuff White People Like", a site Julian seems to be not terribly fond of. All the elements are there: outraged libertarians, Twitter, Facebook, Flash Mobs, friends with cameras, cute chicks, supportive blogger friends with blogs linking to ponderous book titles, public performance art, getting sophistic with cops, police action without use of bullets, molehills into mountains.

(Not that other ethnicities don't do the above. They just tend not to be the genesis and revolution of such cultural creations).

Posted by Finn | April 13, 2008 2:48 PM

While the arrest may have been right, you really need to realize that park police (ie, Ranger Smith) DON'T INVESTIGATE MURDERS. They aren't even in the same jurisdiction as DC Homicide cops. That argument is ridiculous.

Posted by Wydok | April 13, 2008 2:49 PM

Well at least the young lady is probably comfortably home and now we know that if sufficiently harmful or even dangerous people (M13 DC chapter) decided to flash mob, they too would feel the park police fist. Hopefully.

This whole event kind of reads like it should be on "Stuff White People Like", a site Julian seems to be not terribly fond of. All the elements are there: outraged libertarians, Twitter, Facebook, Flash Mobs, friends with cameras, cute chicks, supportive blogger friends with blogs linking to ponderous book titles, public performance art, getting sophistic with cops, police action without use of bullets, molehills into mountains.

(Not that other ethnicities don't do the above. They just tend not to be the genesis and revolution of such cultural creations).

Posted by Finn | April 13, 2008 2:51 PM

Disobeying a "lawful order to disperse" is boiler-plate disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, as it is under the DC code. If you're ordered to disperse and you mouth off about it before you do so, the cop has a judgment to make. So does the citizen. How big a hassle is this likely to be? How much is at stake?

A pretty small hassle here, all told. And very little at stake. Big principles, yes ("the right of assembly") applied for the protection of small private purposes. A bunch of white people shaking their booties in a public place. Sounds fairly disorderly to me. But put a call in to the ACLU (who probably have other things to do) and see how it all shakes out.

It works that way for educated white girls, too. Whether they call themselves libertarians or not, or have "an immediate social circle composed of..." people with enough money and influence to "sue the government for fun."

People who don't generally duck when they see this kind of hassle coming down. Like, outside a club or a house party in neighborhoods where this kind of thing goes down night after night, year after year. And where the consequences more typically drag on through arraignments and court appearances and all the rest of it.

The phrase is "voting with your feet." Which doesn't necessarily mean "Gotta dance! Gotta dance!" But, sure. Liberty is such a damn funny word. Maybe even a farcical one.

Posted by praxis | April 13, 2008 2:59 PM

Ah, this has all the proper ingredients for a kerfluffle: Privileged white folk making nusiances of themselves, check. Abuse of other people's patience to make a stupid point, check. Gratuitous proclamations like "police state" as an excuse for not understanding the rules.

And as an aside, if the jackboots were really in good form did they only arrest one of the happy travelers? Was it perhaps she was the only one who didnt have the common sense to disperse when ordered? Maybe started arguing with the officers?

Tell you what - get into a TSA and start joking about the TSA - you'll find out that's against the rules. Then try to argue with them.

That'd be good comedy!

Posted by Moose | April 13, 2008 3:05 PM

While the arrest may have been right, you really need to realize that park police (ie, Ranger Smith) DON'T INVESTIGATE MURDERS. They aren't even in the same jurisdiction as DC Homicide cops. That argument is ridiculous.

Sorry Wydok:
The park police are not rangers.

Established by George Washington in 1791. "Originally, the authority of the "Park Watchmen", as they were known, was restricted to Federal property in the District of Columbia. In 1882, the Park Watchmen were given the same "powers and duties" as the Metropolitan Police in the District. Since then, the duties of the U. S. Park Police have been synonymous with that of an urban police department."
(Including investigating serious crimes).

Posted by davod | April 13, 2008 3:08 PM

Cops that act like this are the rule rather than the exception nowadays. This is why cop-killings don't bother me anymore. Yeah, it's terrible, but they brought it on themselves by abusing their power.

Posted by ATLien | April 13, 2008 3:36 PM

The problem is, because this site has been infested by so many left-wing trolls (SadlyNo, Glenn Greenwald), it's impossible to tell how many of the above police defenders are just trolling because they don't like libertarians and how many are actually right-wing authoritarians.

So it's impossible to tell whether to be outraged that some people feel like wasting everyone's time by trolling this site, or outraged that some people have no grasp whatsoever of what freedom means.

Posted by David Nieporent | April 13, 2008 3:55 PM