Judge rules that Seattle must not enforce law against graffiti

Townhall Media/Julio Rosas

A federal judge has created a preliminary injunction which prevents the city of Seattle from enforcing the law against graffiti and misdemeanor property destruction. The SPD released a statement today.

Advertisement

Late yesterday afternoon, SPD received an order from a US District Court judge that enjoined, in full, enforcement of SMC 12A.080.020 – the City’s misdemeanor property destruction law.  This means that until further order of the Court, SPD cannot take action on damage to property under this law.  This is not a matter within SPD or City discretion; we are bound by the court order as it is written.

We understand and share the concerns that are being relayed to us by our community, businesses and residents alike.  We know, as evidenced by the thousands of calls for service we receive each year reporting acts of vandalism and other forms of property damage that property damage is, in fact, a crime that is of significance to community members.  SPD is working closely with the Mayor’s Office and City Attorney’s Office to assess next steps with the Court.

Seattle saw a big surge of graffiti during the pandemic. It was up 52% in 2021 compared to 2019 numbers. Because this was a surging problem, Seattle’s mayor Bruce Harrell announced a plan to combat the problem last year.

“We have an opportunity to envision a more beautiful Seattle – with murals and canvasses that reflect our values of creativity, inclusion, and forward thinking,” said Mayor Harrell. “Not only does tagging and graffiti detract from the vibrancy of our city, there are tangible impacts on communities targeted by hate speech, small business owners whose shops are defaced, and residents who rely on City signage for information and guidance. Incidents of graffiti have dramatically increased throughout the pandemic, and progress requires a One Seattle approach, where we work together to advance proven solutions, reduce silos, and tap into our greatest resource – our community.”

Advertisement

But even before this plan was launched, a group of Seattle residents wrote some messages (allegedly in chalk and charcoal) on “eco-block” walls set up outside SPD’s east precinct. If that sounds familiar, it’s because the east precinct is the one that was abandoned by the city in the summer of 2020 in deference to the fine people who created the CHAZ/CHOP, i.e. the autonomous zone in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood. So these four people allegedly wrote anti-police slogans on the blocks near the precinct including “peaceful protest.” All four were arrested and charged with violating the misdemeanor graffiti law which currently reads:

A person is guilty of property destruction if the person intentionally:

1. Damages the property of another; or

2. Writes, paints, or draws any inscription, figure, or mark of any type on any public or private building or other structure or any real or personal property owned by any other person unless the person has obtained the express permission of the owner or operator of the property.

The four individuals sued the city claiming their rights under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fourth Amendment were violated. Yesterday, the judge set up the preliminary injunction on the grounds that she believes they are likely to win the case. From the judge’s order.

Advertisement

Here, the Ordinance plainly targets expressive speech in a real and substantial way that infringes on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free expression. The Ordinance criminalizes “[w]riting, paint[ing], or draw[ing] any inscription, figure, or mark of any type.” SMC 12A.08.020. This appears overbroad on its face. And although the Ordinance also criminalizes “property destruction,” it equally targets speech. As such, it has a close enough nexus to expression that it poses a real and substantial threat of censorship. Defendants advance no plausible argument or basis to conclude that the Ordinance could be read otherwise. Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiffs are likely to show that there is no substantial governmental interest in foreclosing expressive conduct as the Ordinance does or that the Ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve that interest…On its face, the Ordinance sweeps so broadly that it criminalizes innocuous drawings (from a child’s drawing of a mermaid to pro-police messages written by the Seattle Police Foundation (see Supp. Compl. ¶¶ 4.40-4.41)) that can hardly be said to constitute “visual blight” and which would naturally wash away in the next rain storm. Based on the record before it, the Court finds the Ordinance fails to narrowly target the purported visual blight. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

Advertisement

So it sounds to me like the judge is arguing that the law is too broad because it doesn’t allow for chalking. Of course, anyone who has paid attention to the graffiti in Seattle over the past couple years knows that’s not really the issue. The issue is leftist’s paining anti-police slogans on everything. Here’s Seattle’s former police chief Carmen Best describing the CHOP back in 2020:

It was everywhere and it wasn’t chalk:

Advertisement

Anyway, until this case is resolved it seems no one can be arrested or charged for spraying anti-police messages on city property. I suspect there is a contingent of people in Seattle who will take advantage of this judge turning the entire city into a police-free autonomous zone for taggers.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Ed Morrissey 10:00 PM | November 21, 2024
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement