First, it wasn't their property, it was the sidewalk.
Who owns the sidewalk doesn't matter according to San Diego's law: http://www.sandiego....bout/issues.shtml
Second, engaging in public speech was precisely and explicitly *why* he was writing on the sidewalk. Saying that the vandalism law didn't mention the first amendment is like saying the "back of the bus" law didn't mention civil rights.
Maybe, but that would seem to make free speech a defense in any graffiti case. I don't think your Rosa Parks analogy works here. :-)
Reading the previous SD Reader story - http://www.sandiegor...rosecutes-man-fo/ - it sounds like much more is going on here than just a vandalism case. Freeman seemingly wants to crucify Olson and is using the vandalism laws to do so. (But see below.)
I expect Olson will be found guilty and have to pay a few thousand dollars for the "damage" at the 3 banks in 13 incidents (hence the 13 counts and potential $13k fine and potential 13 years). He shouldn't get jail time.
http://www.huffingto...ks_n_3499177.html
Olson told KGTV that one of the branches had claimed it cost them $6,000 to clean up the water-soluble chalk writing.
[ Say $100 an hour for people and equipment? 3 locations, 13 incidents, 6000/13 = 4.5 person-hours each? Alternatively, $6000 x 3 / 13 = $1385 each? Maybe high, but maybe not. http://www.ehow.com/...alk-concrete.html ]
UPDATE: 6/26 -- The San Diego City Attorney's office emails along a statement on the case of People v. Olson:
1. This is a graffiti case where the defendant is alleged to have engaged in the conduct on 13 different occasions. The trial judge has already held that, under California law, it is still graffiti even if the material can be removed with water. Most graffiti can be removed. Also, the judge and a different pre-trial judge held that the First Amendment is not a defense to vandalism/graffiti.
2. The defense is trying to make this case into a political statement, which it is not. This is just one of some 20,000 criminal cases that are referred to us annually by the police department. We have prosecutors who decide whether to issue cases. They are professionals. The City Attorney was not involved in deciding whether to issue this case as is typical practice in prosecution offices for most cases. He hadn't heard of this case until it was in the media.
3. The defense is whipping up hysteria about the prospect of 13 years in custody. This is not a 13 year custody case. It is a standard graffiti case compounded by the fact that the defendant is alleged to have done it on 13 separate occasions. Because there were 13 different occasions when the defendant allegedly engaged in the conduct, the law requires them to be set out separately in the complaint. This increases the maximum sentence, but it still is a graffiti case and nothing more. The courts routinely hear graffiti cases and handle them appropriately using judicial discretion.
4. It is not unusual for victims to contact police or prosecutors about a case. Our prosecutors are trained to focus only on their ethical standards in deciding whether to file a case.
5. We prosecute vandalism and theft cases regardless of who the perpetrator or victim might be. We don't decide, for example, based upon whether we like or dislike banks. That would be wrong under the law and such a practice by law enforcement would change our society in very damaging ways.
(Emphasis added.)
FWIW.
We'll see what happens, I guess.
Cheers,
Scott.