California Sheriff Criticizes UCLA Students’ Lawsuit Over Dismantling Of Anti-Israel Encampment

California Sheriff Criticizes UCLA Students’ Lawsuit Over Dismantling Of Anti-Israel Encampment

A California sheriff has spoken out against what he calls a “meritless” lawsuit filed on behalf of UCLA students and community members. This legal action follows police intervention during a pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA last year, which the sheriff claims unjustly targeted students.

Details of the Lawsuit

This lawsuit, initiated by the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles, asserts that the Los Angeles Police Department and the California Highway Patrol coordinated actions to dismantle the UCLA Palestine Solidarity Encampment. The lawsuit argues that this operation amounted to an unjustifiable “attack” on demonstrators. At the time, UCLA deemed the encampment unlawful, leading to the cancellation of classes on campus.

Law Enforcement’s Stance

Neither the LAPD nor the CHP has issued comments on the pending litigation. Sheriff Chad Bianco, from Riverside County, where he does not hold any involvement in the lawsuit, strongly believes the plaintiffs are fundamentally incorrect. In an interview with Fox News Digital, he expressed his frustration regarding the allowance of protests by both school administrations and law enforcement.

He stated, “At that time, protests were happening not just in our state but throughout the country. My frustration is that school administration permits these demonstrations, and law enforcement complies, allowing situations to escalate. Eventually, this leads to troublesome media coverage or sensational social media posts. Consequently, I consider this litigation to be a meritless publicity stunt. It’s simply outrageous and a severe injustice to our legal system.”

Concerns About Free Speech and Demonstration Safety

Bianco acknowledged the importance of demonstrations and free speech but highlighted concerns about those who misappropriate such rights. He noted that some demonstrators risk being labeled as supporters of genocide or portrayed negatively by others in the community. This dynamic complicates the expression of genuine intentions behind the protests.

Moreover, Sheriff Bianco expressed skepticism about the nature of the encampment’s participants. He mentioned, “Most of the protesters are receiving compensation for their participation. The majority of students believe they are contributing to a meaningful cause or simply follow the crowd. In this scenario, sincere students are overshadowed and ignored by a very small faction that perpetuates unlawful behavior, which ultimately disrupts our educational institutions.”

The Encampment Incident

The encampment initially formed on April 25 and lasted until police dismantled it in the early hours of May 2. The lawsuit documents allegations that officers pulled down barricades and engaged violently with the students present. In its claims, the lawsuit asserts that on April 30, pro-Israel groups aggressively confronted the encampment, using chemical irritants, fireworks, metal rods, and other weapons, during a prolonged five-hour standoff without police intervention.

Statements from Plaintiffs

Among the people involved in the lawsuit, plaintiff Abdullah Puckett characterized police behavior as “militarized”. He claimed in a statement from May 5, “The abhorrent scenes indicating the militarization of police against unarmed, peaceful protesters—especially the night I was shot by police while my hands were raised—show parallels to actions by the Israeli Defense Forces against innocent Palestinian women and children. This alone supports the argument for severing connections that support Israeli militarism, including ties between the IDF and U.S. law enforcement and military. There is a clear message that if we do not confront oppression abroad, the tactics will be employed against citizens in America.”

The lawsuit provides evidence of alleged police misconduct, claiming that officers utilized non-lethal rubber bullets, batons, and riot gear during their response. Souvenirs of the incident include photographs of student injuries sustained during the campus unrest in 2024.

Free Speech and Legal Ramifications

CAIR-LA’s Legal Director, Amr Shabaik, emphasized that across the United States, universities resort to militarized law enforcement to stifle student advocacy for Palestinian justice. He remarked that campuses, which should exemplify free expression, have devolved into settings of oppression. He stated emphatically, “This lawsuit aims to establish boundaries. It is fundamentally about affirming students’ rights to vocalize their opinions without fear of brutal treatment by law enforcement agencies.”

In response, Sheriff Bianco criticized the term “militarized” as inciting unnecessary fear. He regarded the actions of law enforcement as justified and pointed out misconceptions held by the public regarding police interventions in such protests.

Legal Perspectives on the Lawsuit

Harley Lippman, a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, described the encampment’s establishment as an inherently dangerous undertaking. He indicated that by setting up barriers, protesters obstructed campus accesses and impeded university operations. Lippman voiced skepticism regarding the lawsuit’s potential for success, suggesting that it may be more about drawing attention than achieving any legal remedies.

He noted, “Courts generally support officials’ qualified immunity when responding to protests, evaluating police force’s legitimacy based on immediate circumstances rather than hindsight. Although the lawsuit could yield minor victories or settlements to avoid extensive legal costs, achieving its main objectives appears unlikely considering the current qualified immunity landscape and the evidentiary support that demonstrators breached established restrictions.”

Law Enforcement Response to the Situation

Wade Stern, president of the Federated University Peace Officers Association, rebuffed the allegations in the lawsuit, denouncing them as baseless. He contended that dismantling the encampment was a carefully planned and necessary response to an increasingly volatile environment. He emphasized that public safety and maintaining an orderly campus superseded the disruptive activities of a small group.

Stern explained, “The encampment was becoming hazardous following violent interactions between rival groups. Campus safety, public order, and the rights of students and staff to a secure educational atmosphere were jeopardized. The actions taken by law enforcement, including the UCLA police and supporting agencies, were lawful and aligned with established protocols. Students and demonstrators disregarded repeated instructions to vacate an illegal encampment that had spiraled into anarchy.”

Future Implications

Both sides of the argument remain staunch in their positions regarding the events that transpired at UCLA. The unrest raises significant questions regarding the balance of free speech, safety, and legal accountability within education institutions. Sheriff Bianco warned that without intervention from educational leaders, continued clashes between students and police are likely. As the legal proceedings unfold, both UCLA and CAIR have remained unresponsive to requests for comments.