Snook & Haughey, P.C.
Aggressive and ethical representation in Central Virginia
Call Us Now
Snook and Haughey, P.C banner
  • Menu
  • Home
  • What We Do
    • Criminal Law
      • Felony Defense
      • Traffic Offenses
      • DUI
      • Juvenile Court
      • Drug Defense
      • Federal Cases
      • Crimes involving college students
      • Expungements
      • Restoration of Rights
      • Sex Offender Registry Issues
    • Family Law
      • Adoption
      • Divorce
      • Custody and Visitation
    • Personal Injury and Tort Law
      • Car accidents
      • Victim of Crime
      • Slip and fall
      • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
      • Medical Malpractice
      • Dog Bite
      • Premises Liability
    • Civil Litigation
      • Insurance litigation
      • Real estate disputes
      • Will contests
      • Construction contract disputes
      • Employment
      • Libel and slander
    • Wills and Estates
      • Wills
      • Estate Planning
      • Advance Medical Directive
      • Estate Administration
    • Appeals
      • State criminal appeals
      • Federal criminal appeals
      • Civil cases
    • Second opinions
  • About the firm
  • Our Attorneys
    • J. Lloyd Snook, III
    • Sheila C. Haughey
  • How We Charge
  • Contact Us
  • News
  • Law Firm Blogs
    • Constitutional Law
    • Criminal
    • Personal Injury Law
You are here: Home / News / Protestors at Virginia Capitol arrested

Protestors at Virginia Capitol arrested

Published by lloyd on March 3, 2012

Here's the group that was inspiring fear in the police officers...

There was a protest in Richmond today, on the steps of the Virginia Capitol.  The event — called “Call to Action:  Thousands Against the Assault on Women’s Rights” — was to protest against the various bills still under consideration in the General Assembly that implicate women’s rights, such as HB1 — the so-called “personhood” bill and HB 462 — the “mandatory ultrasound” bill (not to mention what has been going on in Washington with contraception with Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke, Rush’s non-apology apology, etc.)  HB1 was sent back to committee, and HB 462 was amended to make the “trans-vaginal” nature of the ultrasound optional rather than mandatory.  This post is not a political post — it will discuss the legality of the arrests.

Apparently the 31 arrested have been charged with three offenses — unlawful assembly, remaining at an unlawful assembly after having been ordered to disperse, and trespass.  The statute on unlawful assembly has been very carefully drawn to make it very difficult to arrest (or at least to convict) under that statute for political protest.  Here is the text of Va. Code §18.2-406:

Whenever three or more persons assembled share the common intent to advance some lawful or unlawful purpose by the commission of an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order, and the assembly actually tends to inspire persons of ordinary courage with well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order, then such assembly is an unlawful assembly. Every person who participates in any unlawful assembly shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. If any such person carried, at the time of his participation in an unlawful assembly, any firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

Let’s look at this carefully, element by element.   One cannot be convicted unless the following elements are met:

  1. Three or more persons assembled (no problem here) who
  2. “Share the common intent to …[commit] an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order” and
  3. “The assembly actually tends to inspire persons of ordinary courage with well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order”

I am sure that there were video cameras rolling, and I suspect strongly that the video cameras will show no act of “unlawful force or violence” on the part of the protestors.    A sit-in does not violate this statute.

The second statute under which they have been charged is §18.2-407:

Every person, except the owner or lessee of the premises, his family and nonrioting guests, and public officers and persons assisting them, who remains at the place of any riot or unlawful assembly after having been lawfully warned to disperse, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

Note that this statute still requires that there have been an unlawful assembly.  If the assembly does not violate the terms of §18.2-406, there can be no violation of §18.2-407.  Finally, I understand that they have also been charged with trespass, I assume in violation of §18.2-119.

If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian, or the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, … he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

I don’t know the exact terms of their demonstration permit, so I cannot comment on whether they might be found guilty of this violation.  But unlawful assembly?  No way.

In 1971, the Virginia Supreme Court decided Owens v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 633, 179 S.E.2d 477  (1971) a Charlottesville case dealing with a prosecution under what was then §18.1-254.1 for a political protest.  The statute at that time did not contain the requirement that the assembly be formed for the purpose of breaching the peace.  The Court, following (but not mentioning) the controlling U.S. Supreme Court law, held that the statute was unconstitutional unless it had as an element that there was a clear and present danger of a breach of the peace.   The U.S. Supreme Court cases included Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965),  and Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), all of which make explicit that “unlawful assembly” statutes must have, at their core, a requirement that those who would be deemed to have unlawfully assembled must have been committing a breach of the peace.   I would note that the standard set forth in §18.2-406 — that a person “of ordinary courage” must have felt that a serious breach of the peace was imminent — is probably only saved from being deemed to be unconstitutional by the use of the word “serious”.  The point is that no demonstration can be declared to be an “unlawful assembly” based on the fact that the government doesn’t like what is being said, and — certainly where there is a permit issued — it cannot be declared to be an unlawful assembly based on them getting noisy, or insulting, or uppity.

Unlawful assembly?  No way.

Posted in Constitutional Law, Criminal, News Tagged unlawful assembly
← Previous Next →

Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
    • Virginia Criminal Procedure, briefly
    • Hot Topics in Criminal Law
    • Felony Defense
    • Drug Defense
    • Traffic Offenses
    • DUI
    • Juvenile Court
    • Federal Cases
    • Crimes involving college students
    • Expungements
    • Restoration of Rights
    • Sex Offender Registry Issues
  • Family Law
    • Adoption
    • Divorce
    • Custody and Visitation
  • Personal Injury and Tort Law
    • Car accidents
      • Handling Car Insurance Claims
      • Health Insurance Liens
      • Contributory Negligence
      • It’s Not Really Our Fault
      • The “Six-Week” Defense
    • Slip and fall
    • Victim of Crime
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Premises Liability
    • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
    • Dog Bite
  • Civil Litigation
    • Insurance litigation
    • Real estate disputes
    • Will contests
    • Construction contract disputes
    • Employment
    • Libel and slander
  • Wills and Estates
    • Wills
    • Estate Planning
    • Advance Medical Directive
    • Estate Administration
  • Appeals
    • State criminal appeals
    • Federal criminal appeals
    • Civil cases
  • Second opinions

Recent Posts

The Color of Law and the History of Race Discrimination in Housing

By lloyd on January 2, 2019

Category: Constitutional Law, News

First Step Act may shorten some federal sentences

By lloyd on December 18, 2018

Category: Criminal, News

Senators Introduce Federal Anti-Lynching Bill

By lloyd on December 4, 2018

Category: Criminal, News

James Fields — Murder or Manslaughter?

By lloyd on December 2, 2018

Category: Criminal, News

Fields Jury Will See Instagram Posts About Using a Car as a Weapon

By lloyd on November 29, 2018

Category: Criminal, News

Serving Central Virginia Since 1985

This website is attorney advertising.  It is designed for general information only.  The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice.  Nothing on this website constitutes an offer to form a contract, and simply responding to this website cannot form a lawyer/client relationship.  The only way that you can become a client of Snook & Haughey, P.C., is to actually speak with a lawyer in the firm and to make an agreement with a lawyer in the firm.

We Accept

We accept Visa, Mastercard and Discover

Copyright © 2025 Snook & Haughey, P.C.
Charlottesville, Virginia

Call Us Now