San Mateo bridge protest led to traffic accidents, according to Highway Patrol
Last Monday, protesters attempted to block the San Mateo-Hayward bridge for 28 minutes. California Highway Patrol arrested 68 demonstrators.(CALEB SMITH/The Stanford Daily)

San Mateo bridge protest led to traffic accidents, according to Highway Patrol

More details have emerged in the aftermath of last week’s protest on the San Mateo Bridge.

According to the California Highway Patrol (CHP), there were several traffic accidents related to the demonstration, some of which involved property damage and minor injuries.

San Mateo County District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe said that his office had not yet decided whether to file charges in the case, but that if charges were filed they would be infractions or misdemeanors rather than felonies.

Separately, participants in the bridge protest have criticized the CHP’s conduct during the protest.

The CHP had been called to respond to one hit-and-run accident related to the protest, according to CHP spokesman Daniel Hill. Officers responding to the protest had also helped several people who were in minor accidents.

The injury in question was a complaint of pain and declined to receive medical attention, and Hill said that reports were not filed in the accidents other than the hit-and-run. Hill said that the demonstrators were largely peaceful.

Hill added that the CHP respects the right to demonstrate but that that pedestrians were not allowed on freeways.

“We respect the public’s right to freely assemble and demonstrate and speak your cause,” Hill said. “Unfortunately the freeway is no place to do that…just for the sheer fact that it’s not a safe place to be a pedestrian.”

Wagstaffe said that the harm the demonstrators caused could be taken into account when his office decided whether or not to file charges.

“We’re going to assess whether or not there was some social impact that calls for a consequence or not,” Wagstaffe said.

He noted that in the past protesters had disrupted a meeting of the San Mateo Board of Supervisors and his office did not file charges because his office thought the level of harm did not merit prosecution. The appearance dates for the protesters are set to be at the end of February and the beginning of March.

Wagstaffe said that “no felonies are involved” in the possible charges his office could file and that based on what he had heard, none of the potential charges would involve the possibility of deportation for international students involved in the demonstration.

The motive for the demonstration would not be taken into account when deciding whether or not to file charges.

“There’s always a million reasons for people to protest and I never assess if one’s good versus the other,” Wagstaffe said.

One participant in the bridge protest, Kristian Davis Bailey ’14, accused the CHP of violating protocols.

“[W]e weren’t given a clear option to disperse,” Bailey said. He added that demonstrators tried to leave the demonstration but were not able to do so.

In an email, Hill said that no dispersal order was required at the demonstration because “[a]s [the protesters] presence on the bridge was already unlawful, there is no legal requirement for an order to disperse to be given prior to making arrests.”

Bailey also expressed concern about what he said were incidents where female demonstrators were patted down by male officers contrary to the wishes of the demonstrators.

In his email, Hill said that it is CHP policy to have female officers pat down female arrestees when possible, but if a female officer is not available female arrestees may be searched by male officers. Hill said that it was possible the protesters on the San Mateo Bridge were searched by male officers and “[t]his is not considered improper or unusual, as all CHP officers, regardless of the officer’s gender, perform searches pursuant to our protocol and policy.”

Bailey said that no new charges had been communicated to the protesters related to the reported traffic accidents. According to him, all of the demonstrators arrested were being represented by a team of four lawyers who specialize in cases of mass civil disobedience.

The demonstrators had received considerable support from the Stanford community and that Stanford affiliates had sent more than 75 emails to the protesters offering support of various kinds, according to Bailey.

“It’s been really amazing to see the outpouring of support from the Stanford community over the past few days,” Bailey said.

Manny Thompson ’15, another protester, justified the interruption of people’s evening commute by saying that people needed to be made aware of the alleged ongoing extrajudicial deaths of black people. Thompson said he had not heard of any new charges connected to the traffic accidents.

According to him, organizers had considered the possibility of arrests prior to the demonstration, but there was not a dedicated “bail fund” created ahead of time.

Stanford disciplinary action would require a formal concern before any action could begin.

Jamie Pontius-Hogan, the deputy director of Stanford’s Office of Community Standards, said in an email that “[o]ur office has not received a formal concern” about the protests.

Contact Caleb Smith at caleb17 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

About Caleb Smith

Caleb Smith '17 is a Deputy Desk Editor from Oakland, California and is planning on majoring in public policy. Outside the Daily, Caleb is Co-director of news at KZSU Stanford, the campus radio station. Have a tip or suggestion? Please contact him at caleb17 ‘at’ stanford.edu.
  • skullbreathe

    And they wonder why they’ve lost the PR battle…..

  • Student

    I sincerely hope that someone at this university takes up the invitation to prosecute these students under the Fundamental Standard. They did not act in accordance with Stanford’s guiding principles and clearly demonstrated a lack of concern, “both within and without the university respect for order…and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens.”

    This isn’t about the cause–everyone has the right to speak freely and peaceably assemble.
    However, this was not just an exercise in free assembly; these students intentionally broke the law and showed no regard for their fellow Bay Area citizens, highlighted by the fact that their actions caused accidents and injuries. These students tread on the good name of our university, which we all trade on. Their cause is irrelevant–they could have been rallying in favor of Israel and we should be calling for their prosecution just as fervently. Even though they want to make it about the cause, it isn’t about that. It’s about the methodology.

  • asd

    Did you read the article or just the shitty headline?

  • Let down.

    Severely disappointed by the headline. Is it going to always be the case that inconvenience matters more than justice?

  • Student

    You’re disappounted because the headline doesn’t reflect your bias.

    The headline was about as objective as it could have been–it’s just reporting what the CHP said (and what actually happened). I’m sorry that doesn’t fit into your narrative.

    P.S. I think the protestors were lucky that something more serious didn’t happen. The car accidents could have been fatal, an ambulance could have been stuck, or a pregnant women could not have made it to the hospital. Perhaps those lives do not matter as much to the protestors as the statement they are trying to make.

  • Anon

    The headline suggests that there were many accidents. Only one accident is mentioned in the article and only one was filed. It is unclear to be what substantiates “accidents” in the plural (or “injuries” in the plural in the print version of the article). The headline is misleading and it is has nothing to do with narrative

    Please do correct me if I am misreading the article.

  • Anon

    How much concern do we as students show for those people systematically depriving people of rights and dignity by doing nothing?

    Does that apathy or unaction align with the fundamental standard?

  • Eusebius

    Is there no other way for you to affect change other than causing harm to others, potentially blocking emergency services, and interrupting people’s lives?

  • seriously?

    You’re right. Stanford should bring Fundamental Standard charges against all of us because Kim Jong-un is oppressing the citizens of north Korea and WE’RE NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT! /s

  • My thoughts

    You are misreading it. It explicitly says multiple times that that there was more than one accident. However, only one led to the CHP being called to the scene and only the hit and run is on record.

    Reading… Not that hard.

  • My thoughts

    I really hope some of these protesters get disciplined under the Fundamental Standard. Maybe in some activist and anarchist circles this “protest” was applauded, but most people I’ve talked to agree that it was in poor taste. Accordingly, their act framed the University, its students, and its alumni in a damaging light. Especially since many of the students involved were wearing Stanford gear.

    Especially Kristian Davis Bailey, if he’s still a student. Honestly suspending him would be a win-win. He’ll get more anti-establishment fodder to write about and the University can distance itself from such a radical menace to society. If he has graduated, what’s the statute of limitations on taking away that diploma?

    I don’t want the fact that I attended Stanford to raise eyebrows in future interviews because it has become such an out of touch, leftist enclave.

  • Verbal SAT score?

    unaction isn’t a word

  • Check your privilege

    Too bad there’s not a rule called: You can break the fundamental standard as long as you’re “concerned for those people systematically depriving people of rights and dignity” bla bla whatever you said.

  • Anon

    Lol I’m sorry these protests will disrupt your interviews

  • Stanford Student
  • So funny!

    Lol liberals making fun of people for actually trying to get a job

  • Anon

    I’m sorry that the actions of others have disturbed your life, but for real? You graduated from Stanford, a fact that gives you more than enough privilege and advantage without you moaning about interview prospects. I’m more ashamed of this mentality than any liberal or political sentiment. Grow the eff up. Also, come on man, if a work place discriminates against you so heavily that this fact was the tipping point in an interview, I’d say you had bigger problems.