,
134 tweets,
17 min read
Read on Twitter
my fearless and amazing friend amber is standing trial this afternoon for refusing to allow police to endanger students.
in april, amber saw UNC police conducting a training exercise on campus using simulated ammunition. while less dangerous than actual bullets, simunition is not “safe.” it can break glass and skin. the exercise was being conducted in an uncontrolled and populated area.
amber is a navy veteran with years of experience conducting and participating in similar exercises. she immediately identified the situation as unsafe and attempted to notify the proper chain of command to have the situation remedied. she was ignored.
this unannounced, unsafe police training exercise put students in danger. amber felt she had no choice but to put her body in the training area. she was arrested and charged with trespassing and resisting an officer. she has since been fired by UNC.
we’re still waiting for the case to be called, but i’m just imagining how afraid everyone else in the area must’ve been. as a veteran, amber recognized the subtle indicators marking the guns as training weapons, but i wouldn’t have. most people wouldn’t.
seeing a group of masked, armed officers, hearing the pop-pop of gunfire on campus would be terrifying. we live in an age of seemingly constant mass shootings. those officers not only put students in physical danger with the simulated rounds, but they could’ve incited a panic.
i have been to more than a few demonstrations with amber. she’s always calm and prepared. i always feel safer with amber around. she was absolutely right that day to take action to protect the UNC community.
i’ve been watching this judge waste time all day. she just called amber’s case and told her lawyer that court adjourns at 5 no matter what.
she says today’s docket had 144 cases and tells amber’s attorney to marshal his time. “if we don’t get it done in two hours, we’ll see her happens”
her attorney says this artificial time limit impacts his client’s ability to have a fair trial. the judge patronizingly asks if he wants to make his opening statement.
he says that officers holding their training on what is traditionally a public forum, without notice, puts a restriction on access to a public forum where first amendment conduct would be protected. the area was not marked.
he argues that the police did not have a compelling state interest to declare an area off limits with no notice or clear marking.
the prosecution offers no opening and moves right into their first witness, a chapel hill police officer.
the prosecution offers no opening and moves right into their first witness, a chapel hill police officer.
the officer says this training is an exercise that is conducted every year. the prosecutor describes the building as “abandoned, empty” and “kind of behind the parking lot” (the second descriptor the officer disagrees with)
they’re having trouble describing the location. here’s amber’s own diagram of the area. 
the officer says it was an active shooter training with the fire department & EMS. he’s unable to recall exactly how far out the planning for the event was done, but that it was a planned exercise.
two fire trucks and two ambulances were present, 10-12 employees from the department of public safety, and “i don’t know, a bunch” of law enforcement vehicles. he says most of the officers were in plainclothes. he was wearing a polo shirt and cargo pants.
(thinking about the time a plainclothes UNC cop threw me to the ground in a crowd!)
the officer is unable to recall quite a few specifics he’s asked about re: the training. he says the incident occurred toward the end of the first scenario, but can’t recall how many scenarios they usually do or how long they usually are.
when asked if he’s had prior contact with the defendant, he says “she interfered with one of my traffic stops.” (cop watch is community defense ❤️)
the judge is allowing the officer to provide hearsay testimony in the form of recounting what a firefighter told him about amber at the time of the incident at issue here, about conduct he did not personally witness.
(did this officer get sworn in for a previous case & that’s just holding over? or is he testifying without being sworn in? i admittedly stepped out a few times today so it’s possible he testified during another case)
“she was visibly upset,” he says of amber’s demeanor when he confronted her about her presence in the training area. “she said i’m probably going to get arrested if they don’t stop this training.”
the disruption lasted about 40 minutes, he says. after 15 minutes, the fire department left. the training did continue after her arrest.
the officer says he told amber “you don’t have to do this,” “it doesn’t have to go this far,” before another officer told her to leave or be arrested. she asked for a moment to make arrangements with a dogsitter first (amber, i love you)
the judge really does keep allowing a whole lot of hearsay! why can’t all these other officers come testify to their own conduct and statements?
the DA asks how many other civilians were within the training area. he says 2 others were present prior to the arrest. “they were friends of the defendant, i guess”
the acoustics in this courtroom/post office fucking suck.
the officer does not recall if the adjacent building is abandoned. he is asked to, and does, identify amber in the courtroom. (did the DA establish venue? god i’d love to see that kind of rookie mistake work in the favor of good)
defense questioning the officer now. he admits there was no sign or demarcation of any kind marking the area off limits. the officer agrees the sidewalk is publicly accessible but says he isn’t sure if the steps of the building are (it’s UNC property, so it is)
the DA objects to the line of questioning about how sidewalks lead to the steps & says he’ll go ahead and stipulate that the steps of the building are open to the public. weirdly, the judge overrules the objection and asks the officer to answer the question? 🤷♀️🤷♀️
“there was nothing indicating that this sidewalk or these stairs were closed to the public?”
“correct”
“there was no notice given to” employees or residents?
“correct”
“correct”
“there was no notice given to” employees or residents?
“correct”
the DA objects to the question of whether or not the UNC veterans center is nearby, but the judge allows it.
aha, that explains her willingness to let this cop give such absolute garbage testimony
thing are being handed to the judge without being moved into evidence what kind of country court nonsense is going on here
a lot of cross talk here, but the defense asks the cop if he knew the veterans center was there when the location was chosen. he says he didn’t choose it. i’m puzzled why they didn’t get a more informed cop to testify for this?
the officer isn’t sure what time the training began, but works backwards from the time of the incident (around 5:30) and estimates they got there around 5pm. (did the state not prep their witness AT ALL?)
defense asks what they were doing inside. “we were training.” does that training entail the use of any kind of projectiles? the officer says they use “airsoft guns, like kids play with” (jesus christ)
the defense asks if it was necessary to conduct the training without notifying the public. DA objects, judge allows it because the defense has stated a first amendment defense strategy. the officer admits it was not necessary to conduct the training without notice or signs.
the defense asks if they’ve begun providing notice and signs since. he says yes, but that it was also standard practice PRIOR to this incident and says he doesn’t know why that protocol wasn’t followed that day.
the officer is obviously just guessing about what probably happened. why is this being allowed?
“it was a training and not a crime scene. you were not conducting a criminal investigation?” (correct)
“your duty in this case was not to investigate a crime?” (no, it was training)
“your duty in this case was not to investigate a crime?” (no, it was training)
are there any restrictions or guidelines for campus police on how to close certain areas? is it just at their discretion?
“in my experience it isn’t just like, we’re gonna go take over this building.” typically they get permission, “somebody got permission from somebody,” but the officer can’t say for certain what the policy is or who would’ve done this.
defense asks the officer if he’s had any professional training on the first amendment. the officer says he doesn’t remember but it’s possible. “i mean not specifically, no.”
that prior interaction the officer says he knows amber from? she videotaped a traffic stop where he “smelled marijuana” and “dragged [the driver] out of the car.”
“i call it interfering when i have to talk to someone,” he says when asked to clarify his classification of her conduct as “interfering” with a traffic stop. (it’s legal to video tape police. always take video of the police.)
redirect from the DA. he asks if unoccupied buildings are typically locked or unlocked. the officer says it depends, but usually.
the evidence of verbal warnings prior to her arrest seem to exist only in the form of hearsay, which the judge has allowed.
defense says because no notice was given, bystanders would have no way of knowing what kind of weapons and ammunition were being used. the officer says the weapons have orange tips (which would mean nothing to me if i saw someone firing a gun)
the officer says he saw people walking in the area but has no way of knowing how they felt about what they may have observed. that concludes the officer’s testimony.
defense approaches the judge with some case citations about public access to sidewalks.
the caselaw says the sidewalk is a public forum. consistent with the open character of such a place, the government’s right to restrict speech there is extremely limited.
the judge looks extremely bored during this first amendment argument. not a great sign.
i just realized lindsay is sitting right next to me also livetweeting the trial 😂
people who want to protest behavior by the state should be notified in advance where they can and can’t go in an otherwise public forum, the defense argues. otherwise it’s protected conduct.
police should not have the unfettered discretion to decide when and where people can speak, the defense says. (the judge is not even paying attention. she appears to be reading something?)
defense now citing some caselaw about granting of permits for public demonstrations. in the case (whose name he either didn’t say or i missed) is re: unfettered discretion of public officials in allowing free expression
(wow a lot of these arguments are ones i’ll hear again if the city of charlottesville tries to enforce the special events permitting ordinance in its current and/or proposed amended condition!)
defense: she chose to protest this police action on the sidewalk leading up to & the steps of a public building. she was addressing a matter of public concern in a public forum that was not marked off limits.
“no legal directive” had been provided to amber that the area was properly and legally restricted to public access up until the time of her arrest.
the defense says the judge must weigh the legal and constitutional question of the state’s interest vs the right to free expression in this instance. he says the officer training is not the same kind of compelling state interest as a crime scene.
there we go. he finally said it: the order to leave was unlawful. cops can’t just exercise unilateral judgement to tell people they can’t be in a public place.
the judge just interrupted the defense to say he has ten more minutes because the prosecution needs to be given more time (remember we have a hard 5pm cutoff...)
what happened to “we’ll see?” forcing him to rush through his argument unfairly limits her right to a fair trial.
ugh that quoted tweet had a typo in it. quote should obviously be “we’ll see what happens.”
“she’s not on trial for her speech, she’s on trial for her conduct” says the DA (does he not know the actual definition of free speech?) and then cites the (dismissed!) trespass charge.
the judge acknowledges that it’s important to uphold the constitution. that’s good.
she denies the defense’s motion to dismiss, saying there was a compelling state interest for the training exercise.
she denies the defense’s motion to dismiss, saying there was a compelling state interest for the training exercise.
i don’t think he was arguing the state DOESN’T have an interest to do these trainings. the issue was the failure of notice?!
she’s falling for the DA’s invocation of the names of many mass shootings. newtown, virginia tech, sandy hook, the events of the last few days... it’s working. the mass terror is giving the state an excuse to violate our civil liberties.
“there’s lots of other public space for her to stand on,” “the location that she chose” posed a safety risk. a cop could have “tripped and falled over her”
the judge continues, saying it was narrowly tailored - the training exercise was after 5pm “after most people would have left the area” and was for a limited period of time.
the judge says a department that is not the police department gave permission for the property to be used. that’s not what the officer testified to. he said it’s standard practice for that to be done but had no knowledge who did it or if it was done in this case.
the prosecution has recalled the officer and is asking about the trespassing charge that is no longer at issue in this trial.
he is not the officer who trespassed her and admits he has not even seen the citation himself. he just says he overheard another officer tell her she was trespassing.
the officer who did issue the trespass order is not even named. i don’t even see any other uniformed officers in the courtroom? there was no motion to exclude witnesses so i assume there just aren’t any other officers testifying.
sorry, i believe it was the defense who recalled the officer. new courtroom, new characters. my bad.
the defense asks the officer it’s true that some of the offices in the area close at 7pm. the officer does not know. the officer steps down. defense calls their second witness, a young man named roger.
roger was in the area that evening. he is in the work study program at the veterans resource center. he notes that he was working during his normal work hours at the time.
roger says amber left that night around 5 and then came right back, saying something unusual was going on next door. she told the students to stay inside where it was safe. her work study students care about her & instead followed her outside out of concern.
“at first the police department was inquisitive” but then there was “a breakdown in communication” and the officers demanded amber leave the area. “it didn’t quite make sense” why it was such a big deal, the witness says.
“they weren’t expressly clear as to what that meant,” the witness says. it was unclear how much of the area was off limits and how far away the officers wanted her to go.
the witness says he called the UNC police department by phone & spoke to the desk sergeant about “the situation that was occurring,” specifically that officers had demanded ID from him (a black UNC student on university property breaking no law)
the officer he spoke to wasn’t sure whether campus officers were allowed to demand ID from him and transferred his call to another line where it was never answered. the DA now objects that this is irrelevant.
the witness says officers threatened to have him tried by the honor court for refusing to produce ID and became hostile with him for standing with his hands in his pockets. the DA objects again, defense says it goes to how officers were treating people on public property.
the witness says officers threatened to search him. (again, this is a black UNC student on UNC property breaking no laws. he was not in the same position as amber, he was well back and the officer previously testified they her friends were not in the area they were clearing)
“they asked her to stand up, she stood up.” “she allowed herself to be arrested,” he says. he says others in the area were given far more warning and no one else was arrested.
the witness called the desk sergeant again to ask about whether the area was properly restricted, how to find out if an area is restricted, if signs should’ve been posted, etc.
the officer was unable to answer his questions. judge sustains objections on relevance to further questions about answers he got to his questions and policy changes as a result of this incident.
“in my view of what happened, i did not see ms mathwig resist arrest,” the witness says. “while she was not complying” with requests to leave, “she was doing what was asked” when it came to her actual arrest.
he also specifically notes that the steps she was sitting on were much wider than the defendant herself. she was not fully obstructing the pathway in and out of the building.
“regardless of what was happening, there were students there. the students were not the primary safety concern. as a student, that was very concerning.” he says amber was trying to ensure the safety of the students.
it’s ten minutes to five. the defense needs a bathroom break, which the judge denies.
the defense plans to present testimony from the defendant but has no additional witnesses. the state offers they they don’t intend to question amber or offer rebuttal witnesses. it seems like we could probably finish this in under an hour, probably less!
instead of just powering through, which is my experience from judges in charlottesville, she’s sticking to her hard 5pm stop and continuing 10 minutes of testimony + closing arguments to another day!!!
the state wants to take up a procedural matter but needs a moment. because the DA asked for some time, now it’s ok with the judge and the defense is being allowed to use the bathroom.
the DA is moving for a mistrial while the defendant is in the bathroom.
the judge is reading the statute the DA says allows him to do this. she asks which provision he’s requesting the mistrial under. his response was weirdly mumbled and inaudible.
“we are at the point where jeopardy is already attached,” says the prosecutor. another long silence as everyone stares downward, presumably reading the statute.
she says she’s not sure the statute applies. “we’re not doing it again, we can either finish it today or finish it another day.”
the court reporter and bailiff both agree that they are available to stay a little longer. the judge says she needs a few minutes to make arrangements to have her child picked up. the defense attorney is concerned that his family obligations are immovable.
strange turn - she was the one pushing for the hard stop, at his objection, earlier. now he’s angry she’s allowing him to finish? but it looks like we are going to push through and get it done.
ok, court is back in session. this is truly bizarre!
amber is on the stand. she says she left that evening & drove past the building where the training was occurring. she went back into her office and informed the students something was going outside, then went out herself to observe.
“at that point i heard popping sounds from inside the building,” she said. there was no indication of what was going on, just fire trucks and ambulances and the sound of gunfire. the average observer would not know it was simulated.
because amber is a navy veteran, specifically a former military police officer with years of experience doing similar exercises, she recognized the sound as simunition. she also recognized the proper safety procedures were not being observed.
“you shouldn’t mix live weapons with fake weapons,” she says of the environment at the training exercise. the area was in no way restricted to passers-by. anyone could wander through and assume it was a real active shooter situation.
at this point, amber texted her supervisor to alert them to the situation. she also attempted to call chief blue & a UNC vice chancellor. this all transpired over the course of 18-22 minutes.
“i observed a whole bunch of folks out in the parking lot,” and was approached by a man in a white polo with a fire department logo on it. he told her she couldn’t be there, it wasn’t safe. she said she KNEW it wasn’t safe, which is why she was there.
it was quite a while before an officer approached her. “at no point did the training officer discuss any alternatives” with her. she says she did not physically obstruct the passage of any officer.
she says the training was discontinued because of her presence... because they knew it was unsafe to conduct the training with her present. (so why not properly restrict the area?!!?)
“i don’t know what to do. i guess i am going to be arrested because i don’t intend to leave,” she recalls telling someone on the phone while sitting on the public steps of the UNC building where the training was being conducted.
“testimony has tried to depict me as uncooperative, angry, and upset,” she says. she was upset about the disregard for students safety and mental health & was “surprised and taken aback” by such an unsafe training environment.
“people should be fired,” she says of the way the training was carried out. she believes it is indicative of a larger culture of disregard for student safety by UNC police.
the prosecution has no questions for the defendant & she steps down.
defense renews the motion to dismiss based on previous constitutional arguments.
defense renews the motion to dismiss based on previous constitutional arguments.
aha, i see now. i missed some of this connective tissue before. he’s arguing that the resisting arrest charge can’t be valid because the trespass arrest wasn’t valid.
to the judge’s earlier statement that the police narrowly construed the restriction to public access, the defense recalls the testimony of the witness who was much further away from the building than amber who was threatened with search & arrest.
“the police just told everybody to leave, whether they were obstructing or not, and that’s not narrowly tailored,” the defense argues. people lawfully in the area were threatened by police.
“they cannot just give broad orders to leave, that’s unconstitutional,” (i wish this caselaw weren’t related to the rights of anti choicers to harass people outside abortion clinics, but 🤷♀️🤷♀️)
the defense recalls that even the officer who testified didn’t know why on this particular day no notice was provided of the training, as is standard practice.
the judge is shuffling papers, reading, frowning, chewing gum... just about everything except listening to defense counsel’s argument.
“the order to leave was unconstitutional, she had a right to conduct her sit in,” defense argues. he says even if it had been properly noticed, it still would’ve been an unreasonable restriction (i think he should stick to the lack of notice argument, but i’m not the lawyer)
this prosecutor is a terrible mumbler. what is he even saying at all?!
the judge said amber’s testimony contained some new information, but the fact that she was told the training couldn’t continue with her in the area “tells me that it was more than just being on the steps, it was being in the area.”
we interpreted the same information very differently. 🤷♀️
“i am looking at it through a constitutional lens, a first amendment lens,” and finds amber guilty of “resist, delay, obstruct” specifically based on her own testimony that the training was halted during her presence on the steps.
“it is difficult... well, i’ll just leave it at that. i appreciate her voicing those concerns” about the safety issue that amber called attention to day, says the judge.
prosecution on sentencing: “i think she’s provided some critical context on why she did what she did,” and says he tried to resolve this without prosecution (?) and that she has no prior record and no longer works the university.
amber and her attorney are conferring quietly.
judgement is continued and court costs are waived.
“cops don’t keep us safe. you don’t keep us safe,” maya says from the gallery before walking out.
court adjourned.
court adjourned.
that was an extremely fucking bizarre court experience. and i’ve had plenty of weird ones to compare it to.
for the record, amber says this wasn’t her. she says she’s never video taped a traffic stop. so this cop was biased against her for a perfectly legal action performed by someone he had her confused with.
so, to clarify, “prayer for judgment continued” is a weird thing unique to north carolina law. she’s guilty, but won’t face any consequences.
i’m always surprised to be reminded that judges are elected in north carolina. chapel hill district court judge samantha cabe started her current four year term in 2016 👀
