OR ACLU Sues Medford Police Over Spying on Harm Reductionists, Other Activists [FEATURE]

Are the cops in this southern Oregon city protecting public safety or chilling political expression?

The Stabbin' Wagon's schedule.

An Oregon state law—ORS 181A.250—prohibits police from collecting or maintaining information about the political, religious, or social views, and associations or activities of people who are not reasonably suspected of criminal activity. But in a lawsuit filed last month, the ACLU of Oregon accuses police in the Rogue Valley city of Medford of violating that law by conducting social media surveillance on various activists, including a harm reduction group and its locally high-profile founder. 

That statute, enacted by the legislature in the 1980s, came in response to a history of state "law enforcement agencies using their power to monitor, silence and criminalize the protected speech of those whose views they disagree with or find distasteful, unorthodox, or politically inconvenient," the complaint said. That history goes at least as far back as the Portland Police Bureau's "Red Squad," which spent most of the 20th Century monitoring and targeting the constitutionally protected speech and protest activities of people and groups whose viewpoints challenged prevailing political and social norms.

Thanks to a public records request by the group Information for Public Use, the ACLU was able to find numerous records showing MPD employees engaging in monitoring the social media activity of the three plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are the Rogue Valley Pepper Shakers, a LGBTQ rights group loudly critical of police misconduct; the Stabbin' Wagon, a harm reduction outfit that has a history of recording conflicts with the MPD; and Stabbin' Wagon founder Melissa Jones, who " works to address racist and classist issues within the war on drugs by advocating for decriminalization, safe supply and safe consumption sites, and social justice work through an equity, equality, and abolition lens." 

MPD wanted to keep an eye on these "troublemakers," but that is against state law, the complaint argues.

"Documents show the Medford Police Department has systematically violated ORS 181A.250 by targeting civilian activists, advocates, and grassroots organizations—including Plaintiffs and like-minded people and groups throughout the Rogue Valley—for covert surveillance and monitoring, outside of any criminal investigation, and based upon the content of their protected political activities," the complaint reads. 

"Simply put, MPD is abusing its power to spy on activists whose views it dislikes— and, not only that, building and maintaining files about such people and organizations without any justifiable law enforcement purpose, a blatant violation of Oregon law. The Court’s intervention is necessary to declare MPD’s surveillance activities unlawful and to put a stop to them—once and for all." 

The city of Medford and the MPD say they are not breaking the law. In a statement, Medford City Attorney Eric Mitton said police were not breaking the law because they were monitoring online activity for potential public safety concerns—not to collect information on political views. 

"Incidents at public events, such as the conflicts and traffic disruptions in Medford on June 1, 2020 [during George Floyd protests], exemplify why being prepared is essential," said Mitton. "[T]he City was able to reroute traffic and help mitigate conflicts between counter-protesters and protesters."

Medford Police Chief Justin Ivens said in a statement that his department upholds the constitutional rights of citizens.

"We use publicly accessible information to plan and staff events impacting public safety," said Ivens. "This ensures our ability to address potential safety concerns while safeguarding those exercising their constitutional right to free speech."

But the ACLU of Oregon wasn't buying it. 

"These aren’t public safety threats. People aren’t engaged in crime," said Kelly Simon, the group's legal director. "But the police are being distracted by useless information and that sort of waste of resources that detracts from real public safety concerns in the community… should concern everyone."

MPD's online surveillance can discourage protected political activity, she said. 

"I think that’s what makes this kind of invasive surveillance so chilling," said Simon. "[Y]ou don’t know you’re being followed or you’re being watched or people are kind of infiltrating your group until you know. And then once you know, it’s quite terrifying."

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop MPD monitoring of gay activists and the harm reductionists and "other relief as the Court deems just and proper."