QuickTake:

The $700,000 settlement ends more than five years of litigation over claims that included First Amendment and excessive force violations by Springfield police against protesters marching after what has been described as a noose was hung across the street from a Black resident.

A lawsuit has been settled with the city of Springfield that alleged police violated free speech and other rights during a street march held in response to what’s been described as a noose hung across the street from a Black resident.

Street march organizer Black Unity and five people attending the July 29, 2020 demonstration alleged civil rights violations by the city and several individual Springfield police officers in a March 2021 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene.

The city will pay $700,000 to end the lawsuit without admitting liability, according to the settlement agreement released by the city to Lookout Eugene-Springfield.

The lawsuit, filed by the Eugene-based Civil Liberties Defense Center, alleged several rights violations, including that police improperly gathered information about protesters. 

As part of the settlement, the city agrees to “the deletion of certain non-public materials that are not subject to records retention requirements,” city spokesperson Elyse Ditzel said in an email.

The city will perform information searches “for agreed to search terms,” according to the settlement agreement, with documents to then be provided to the Civil Liberties Defense Center and the deletions to follow.

“The City understands this provision to relate to the plaintiff’s claims regarding information collected during the events that gave rise to the litigation,” Ditzel said. Records “that are beyond their applicable retention” under state law will then be deleted, Ditzel said.

In a Wednesday, July 29, news release, the center called the settlement “historic” as it “sends an unmistakable message to police agencies everywhere: violating constitutional rights carries real consequences.”

The settlement came in the wake of a Jan. 23 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken that denied immunity to Springfield police.

Part of the lawsuit alleged excessive force by police in skirmishes with protesters, and Aiken ruled that videos failed to show evidence of violence or crowd incitement by marchers before police force was used.

In a statement released by the center, Claire Reyna, a co-founder of the community organization Black Unity, said the settlement “helps debunk the narrative” that demonstrators were “trying to cause havoc.” The settlement “helps pave the way for future activists,” Reyna said.

“It reiterates that people of color, and those who stand against police misconduct, still have the right to peacefully protest and to exercise our First Amendment rights just as much as anyone else,” Reyna said.

A march of protest 

In an earlier ruling, Aiken described the June 29, 2020 demonstration, one in a series of marches, as “aimed mainly to protest a noose that had been hung from a tree in a yard on Bluebelle Way in Springfield’s Thurston Hills neighborhood, a house located across the street from a Black neighbor.”

The march took place at a time of nationwide street protests against racism and police brutality, about two months after the death of George Floyd, a Black man who was handcuffed and lying face down on a Minneapolis street when a white police officer put his knee against Floyd’s neck for several minutes. The officer was later found guilty of murder and manslaughter.

Aiken’s ruling, which denied motions by the city and officers for a judgment in their favor, also discussed legal arguments made by protesters that police actions were not “content neutral” because a barricade was not enforced against counterprotesters.

“The video evidence shows that, unlike the marchers, counter protesters were permitted to speak and assemble on both sides of the barrier,” Aiken wrote. “The evidence shows counter protesters filming from the police side of the barrier and even cheering on the officers.”

Aiken ruled that a “reasonable jury could find that the barricade was enforced only against the marchers, but not the counter protesters, because of the content of the marchers’ speech.”

The ruling also noted several instances where police gathered information about marchers, stating that police “offer no evidence that they collected protesters’ data because of permit status, crowd size, or any disorderly conduct.” 

The Jan. 23 ruling by Aiken allowed claims by the protesters to move forward, but they remained unproven in court

In a statement Wednesday, Ditzel said: “The City has reached a negotiated resolution of this matter, and the lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice. As reflected in the settlement agreement, the City does not admit liability. Settlement allows all parties to resolve the litigation while avoiding uncertainty, expense, and time associated with continued court proceedings. With the litigation now concluded, the City remains focused on serving the Springfield community.”