City settles last lawsuit over protest.

Byline: BILL BISHOP The Register-Guard

The sole remaining lawsuit that grew out of a tree-cutting protest in downtown Eugene five years ago was settled out of court Thursday with a $30,000 city payment to three demonstrators who were pepper-sprayed by police.

In the settlement, neither side admitted wrongdoing. But the city agreed to require all officers with the rank of sergeant and above to attend two training sessions on police response to nonviolent protests. The sessions are to be conducted by an outside consultant in 2003 and 2004.

Spokesmen for both sides said the protest and its turbulent aftermath taught them bitter lessons but left the community with better public policies and police procedures.

Police response to the protest sparked a backlash of public criticism that led to a criminal investigation of police and revision of department policies on using pepper spray and tear gas, and for handling large nonviolent protests, acting police Chief Thad Buchanan said Thursday.

The criminal investigation cleared police of any wrongdoing, but the incident became a landmark protest in a city accustomed to public demonstrations.

In the two years that followed, participants and observers filed seven lawsuits alleging excessive use of force by police and violation of constitutional rights to assemble and to observe public affairs. Six of the lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn.

Officers involved in the protest were stung by the second-guessing and criticism that followed the incident, even though every review determined that they performed well, Buchanan said. Nevertheless, the department won't again put itself in a position where it might be seen as acting with unnecessary urgency, he said.

Jim Flynn, a June 1 protester and plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the event exposed how the city planned the tree cutting for daybreak on a Sunday to avoid an expected public protest, then used strong-arm tactics to prevent any delay in their plan. The city has since sought more public input on tree-cutting projects, he said.

The incident also awakened citizens to the potential harshness of police tactics and led to formation of the city police commission to monitor department policies, Flynn said.

"It really made people take a step back and realize some of our police officers and their actions can be pretty brutal," he said.

Referring to the use of large amounts of pepper spray to remove treesitters and to disperse crowds of observers and supporters, Flynn said, "I think the police got a wake-up call that they can't treat human beings the way they did that day."

In the end, both sides agreed they didn't want to wait another two to three years to go to trial. Lawyers were awaiting rulings in similar cases that are in various stages of federal court appeals that could potentially affect the outcome of the local case.

The plaintiffs - Flynn, 42, Brett H. Cole, 31, and Josh H. Laughlin, 27 - faced the prospect of trying to raise a lot of money for a case that would probably be appealed even if they won.

Flynn noted that U.S. Magistrate Tom Coffin rejected numerous attempts by the city to have the case dismissed. "There was, at least in that judge's mind, some merit to our police brutality claims. It was obvious to the judge, and certainly to us, that the city went too far that day," he said.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs chose to settle. "People wanted it over with," Flynn said.

The protest began near the intersection of Broadway and Charnelton Street around 3 a.m. June 1, 1997, when 11 people jumped a chain-link security fence around a parking lot and climbed into five large maple trees that were to be felled that day to make way for a $24-million housing/retail/parking complex.

A large crowd of supporters and onlookers gathered as police tried to remove the tree sitters, using pepper spray on several of them. Tensions climbed as the protest dragged on into the afternoon and spilled onto nearby streets, with police in riot gear using pepper spray and tear gas on people who attacked the security fence or who refused officers' orders to clear the streets and disperse.

The state police and the district attorney's office later reviewed videotape and reports from police and citizens involved in three dozen incidents of sprayings and arrests. They found no police misconduct in controlling the crowd or arresting 22 adults charged during the confrontation.

The three plaintiffs in the lawsuit were convicted of second-degree trespassing 14 months after the incident when a judge rejected their "choice-of-evils" legal defense. Under rare circumstances, a citizen may break the law if doing so is the only avenue to avoid a greater public or private harm, and the harm is imminent.

In a separate case four months after the June 1 protest, another judge ruled that the trees that were cut had been removed lawfully.

Nevertheless, the incident brought calls for change and for a police oversight committee.

Working with the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, city officials revised the department's policy on use of chemicals, which, among other things, now discourages use of pepper spray to control crowds or in situations where it might affect innocent bystanders.

When the new policy took effect in late 1999, the ACLU dropped a lawsuit on behalf of four people affected by the police spraying.

Thursday's settlement, mediated by Lane County Circuit Judge Lyle Velure, closed the book on the June 1 protest, Eugene Acting City Manager Jim Carlson said Thursday. "After five years, everybody is weary of it," he said.

Police response to the protest sparked a backlash of public criticism that led to a criminal investigation and revision of department policies on using pepper spray and tear gas, and for handling large nonviolent protests.