Court Date Set for SF Pride
A San Francisco Superior Court judge has set a date for organizers of the city's LGBT Pride celebration to argue why they should be able to hold this year's festival.
The hearing, set for June 16 - just over a week before the celebration's scheduled to take place - comes after three men injured because of shootings at previous festivals filed lawsuits in May against the San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration Committee. In their complaints, the men ask for an injunction against this year's June 25-26 Pride party happening unless several conditions are met.
In documents filed last week, attorney Ryan Lapine, who's representing all three men, said "potential harm" to people "is imminent. ... There is a strong, if not overwhelming likelihood that more preventable violence will occur without the intervention of this court."
The injunction would not apply to the Pride parade.
In his May 25 order for Pride organizers to show cause why a preliminary injunction shouldn't be granted, Judge Harold Kahn said they needed to explain why they shouldn't have to stop the festival unless they follow several recommendations, including moving the celebration to a location such as Golden Gate Park or the parking lot at AT&T Park, making the footprint smaller, using metal detectors and bag checks, fencing in the event and making it a ticketed festival - even if it remains free, and increasing safety personnel to at least 500 security guards. According to Lapine, the recommended changes come from police.
The plaintiffs are Freddy Atton, of San Francisco, who was shot at the 2015 festival; and brothers Mahlik and Monte Smith, of Oakland, who were injured trying to get away from a shooting at the 2013 celebration.
Communications strategist Sam Singer, who's working with the Pride Committee, said in an interview Tuesday, "San Francisco Pride does not believe the request for an injunction against the celebration should be granted by the court, and we look forward to presenting our case."
Organizers aren't considering any of the recommended changes, Singer said.
"We take safety seriously," he said. "We work very closely" with police, "our own security and crowd control, and volunteers to ensure everyone enjoys both the celebration and the parade. Pride is an iconic, important, and beloved event in San Francisco, and it draws an international crowd of people."
Asked specifically about whether Pride organizers plan to add metal detectors, bag checks, or fences, Singer said, "I don't think the plans are any different than they've been in previous years," and "It's a public event, so it's highly unlikely" those changes would be made.
"The reason Pride enjoys this success is because the event is a lively, fun, and safe atmosphere for the LGBTQIA community and our friends, families, and supporters together," he added.
Attorneys for SF Pride hadn't filed responses in court as of Tuesday.
George Ridgely, the Pride Committee's executive director, didn't respond specifically to an emailed question about whether there would be changes to security this year, but he said, "More information regarding the celebration and the parade will be released in the coming weeks."
Lapine declined to comment how confident he is that the plaintiffs will get an injunction.
In court documents, though, he said that despite shootings and other violence, the Pride Committee "has taken no action."
"It is content to allow violence to happen rather than devote existing resources to fixing the problem," Lapine said. The San Francisco Police Department "has concluded that until its recommendations are implemented, there is a specific and unreasonable risk that violent crime will occur at the celebration and cause injury" to anyone at or near the celebration.
Police Testimony
Through his court filings, Lapine has repeatedly referred to testimony in August 2015 by police Commander Greg McEachern, who mentioned most, if not all, of the recommendations Kahn cited in his order. One of McEachern's ongoing concerns was the size of the event, according to a partial transcript of his testimony.
At one point, while he was being questioned about shootings at Pride, McEachern said there was "an estimate of 500,000 people in an area that was very difficult for officers to get around ... and then, when you coupled the fact that it was an open area for alcohol, that anyone could come in without having any bags searched, that there wasn't a level of some type of - that we felt sufficient security to ensure things didn't happen, that the footprint became too large, in my opinion, for us to safely police it was the amount of officers that we had."
He added that it wasn't the SFPD's responsibility to provide security at the festival's gates, screen people coming in, or perform similar tasks, and he felt Pride organizers haven't provided enough private security.
"Based on the events that occurred in 2013 and the activity that occurred, it was my belief that there was an insufficient amount of private security that were ... at the event to assist the efforts to keep the venue safe, and the recommendation is that their security should be doubled, if not tripled," McEachern said.
After meeting with Pride organizers in previous years, he talked about how he'd documented a 2015 meeting because "I wanted to have an accurate record of what we were requesting from Pride."
Police "command staff attended a meeting and brought up specific requests of the Pride organizers. And because they were there and they were making specific requests of changes to the way the event was being run, I wanted to make sure we had documentation so that it was completely clear of what our recommendations were to Pride."
McEachern's testimony was part of a lawsuit that had been filed by Trevor Gardner, a Los Angeles man who sued the Pride Committee after he was shot at the 2013 festival. Gardner's case was settled earlier this year. Lapine, who's with the Beverly Hills-based firm Rosenfeld, Meyer, and Susman, represented Gardner.
A lawsuit by Eric Ryan, who was also shot in 2013, is still pending. Lapine is not representing Ryan.
Court documents filed last month include numerous examples of Pride officials acknowledging serious safety concerns, including a 2013 Pride safety subcommittee report that said, "It has been many years running now that Pride has had serious crises at its closing time. It is negligent of us to maintain this ignore-the-problem-and-hope-it-goes-away-attitude."
The report said, "The 6:30 p.m. ending time is an improvement over the former 7 p.m. time, but we continue to advocate for a 6 pm. closing time on Sunday."
This year's Sunday Pride celebration is set to end at 6.