Occupy Columbia case reaches settlement

  • Follow Metro

COLUMBIA — A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed by Occupy Co­lumbia protest members against Gov. Nikki Haley and other state officials.


Attorneys for Haley and state law enforcement officials agreed during a mediation hearing Wednesday to pay Occupy members $192,000, Drew Radeker said.
“It’s a fair settlement, and we’re glad that the state of South Carolina doesn’t have to continue to pay these lawyers to defend the case that we would have ultimately won anyway,” Radeker said. “We’re pleased with the settlement.”

Details about the deal were not released.

Occupy Columbia began its protest at the State­house grounds Oct. 15, 2011, as part of a nationwide series of demonstrations against economic inequality. Protesters set up tents, organized safety and medical committees and even rented a portable toilet. Some stayed at the site nearly around the clock.

A month later, 19 protesters were arrested after Ha­ley, in an effort to roust the protesters, said anyone attempting to camp out on the Statehouse grounds after
6 p.m. would be arrested by the Bureau of Protective Services for trespassing.

Ha­ley said the protesters were free to return in daylight hours but noted that the occupation had damaged the grounds and cost thousands in overtime and other costs.

Several of those arrested sued, arguing that their First Amendment rights had been violated. A federal judge in South Carolina initially sided with protesters but reversed that ruling after the state Budget and Control Board – of which Haley is chairwoman – approved emergency regulations that banned sleeping on Statehouse grounds.

The new rule made no reference to 6 p.m. or any curfew on protesting. Haley said the protesters could voice their opinions but just couldn’t sleep or set up camp.

That emergency rule eventually expired and the protesters returned. In March 2012, Haley signed a bill banning camping and sleeping on Statehouse grounds, with the new law containing the same wording as the emergency prohibition.

Richland County prosecutors dropped charges against the protesters, but the civil lawsuit continued. In December, a federal appellate court ruled that the protesters had the right to sue Haley, noting that the governor’s actions did violate the protesters’ civil rights because no regulation in place at the time of their actual arrests banned people from living on Statehouse grounds.

A Haley spokesman said the governor was right to order the protesters’ arrests and did not support the settlement.

“Gov. Haley made the right call to stop a group of people’s attempt to live on the Statehouse grounds and use our flower beds as a toilet - they presented a clear danger to public health and safety,” Doug Mayer told AP in an email. “In no way does the governor support the Insurance Reserve Fund’s decision to agree to this settlement.”

Comments (3) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
dichotomy
43908
Points
dichotomy 02/20/14 - 09:26 pm
0
1
There is no 1st Amendment

There is no 1st Amendment right to deface or destroy public property regardless of any specific regulation about sleeping on the Statehouse grounds. They should not have settled this lawsuit on principle. Next time just shoot them if they are using the bathroom in the flower beds. I'd shoot them if they were doing that in mine.

RunningMan
346
Points
RunningMan 02/21/14 - 08:31 am
0
0
Dichotomy

I bet if they were protesting something that you supported, you would be just fine with their actions and the ruling. And once again we have someone like yourself talking about shooting someone just because you have a gun. Wow, what would folks like you do without your big, bad, guns. I know, nothing. Take the guns out of the picture and who/what will you be/do?

Casting_Fool
1215
Points
Casting_Fool 02/21/14 - 08:40 am
0
0
Runningman, it's called

Runningman, it's called sarcasm. And without our weapons, we would be subjugated slaves and not free citizens.

Back to Top
loading...
Top headlines

Montoya wins Indy

With the same confidence he showed 15 years ago when he routed the field, Juan Pablo Montoya sliced his way through the field and won his second Indianapolis 500 on Sunday.
Search Augusta jobs