Does John T. or other Branciforte attendees have the specific code section that was used by the CHP to shut down the demo on 2/25? This is important, because if it's anything other than 2410, then I suggest that anyone arrested would be be able to succesfully use a defense that cites the precedent in the case referred to previously.

John T. is right in that the case is "hardly decisive". This is why I suggest that the law is ready for a challenge. It has not yet been decisively litigated. Of course, the outcome could be similar as in Amy and Cassandra's case; that the Legislature could just pass a law banning all forms of expression on overpasses. But even that could be challenged.

Another point John raises is the "amount of traffic congestion" caused by any specific demo. I would suggest that the timing of the protest (from 5-6:30p) already coincides with peak rush hour traffic, and the CHP would have a very high 'burden of proof' arguing that congestion was greater than it normally would have been without any sign holding. Of course, outside of peak traffic times this argument would not hold.

Final point is that jurisdiction in this instance lies not with CalTrans, but with the CHP, so this is significantly different than Amy and Cassandra's case, where banners were "attached" to the fencing and not merely held.

I suggest that the Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Women In Black, et al, should consult with some attorneys before just giving up and going back to Ocean and Water. There are important issues at stake here and a case arising from it could have wide implications for future free speech expression.