JACKSONVILLE, Fla — The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office agreed to pay $100,000 and to limit its future tactics to settle a lawsuit brought by protesters who argued their May 31 arrests were illegal and violent.
Although the Sheriff's Office didn't concede it broke the law or did anything wrong, the settlement gives $10,000 to each of the four plaintiffs and $60,000 in attorneys' fees. The Sheriff's Office also agreed to three limitations on how it handles protests:
• Officers can't order protesters to disperse unless there's "a well-grounded fear of a breach of the peace in the form of imminent violence, a threat to public safety or impairment of traffic."
• Officers can't arrest protesters for failure to comply without first specifying what area they have to disperse from and notifying everyone they must disperse and what the consequences would be if they don't. Officers also must point out where protesters should walk in order to disperse and provide enough time to let them do so.
• Officers can't use chemical agents or irritants unless alternative crowd control methods are ineffective and the use of those agents is the "most reasonable alternative" to address a threat.
The settlement is a clear win for protesters who were asking for federal District Judge Brian Davis to order the Sheriff's Office to adopt those rules.
If the Sheriff's Office violates the rules before January 2021, then the plaintiffs can file a motion and the court will make the agency pay even more money.
The Times-Union has reached out to the Sheriff's Office, the mayor and the State Attorney's Office for comment.
City Councilman Matt Carlucci, who is co-chairing a social-justice special committee, said he would like the committee to review what happened on those days.
"I would like to hear more about it in social justice committee," Carlucci said. "I’m quite sure Sheriff [Mike] Williams would be happy to meet with us. He’s an upfront guy. I like him."
Matt Kachergus, who represented the protesters, said in a statement that "this agreement vindicates plaintiffs’ rights to peacefully assemble without fear of arrest.
The purpose of this lawsuit was to ensure that the First Amendment rights of all are protected, and they are well pleased with this settlement. Where, as here, parties are able to come together in good faith to resolve matters of great constitutional significance, the entire community benefits."