Tuscaloosa Lawmaker Says Riot Offender Bill Endangers Rights Of Peaceful Protestors

MONTGOMERY, AL — A Tuscaloosa lawmaker spoke out in strong opposition to a bill that would establish new criminal penalties for those arrested during instances viewed as riots.

Click here to subscribe to our free Tuscaloosa Daily newsletter and breaking news alerts

House Bill 2 passed the Alabama House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday with a favorable report, with members split primarily along racial and partisan lines. The bill is a complex one, loaded with different reforms viewed as questionable by Democrats in the legislature.

Here's a quick breakdown of the bill.

• It would establish the crimes of "assault against a first responder" in the first and second degrees.
• The bill also seeks to amend the crimes of "riot "and "inciting to riot," in addition to establishing the crimes of "aggravated riot" and "unlawful traffic interference." As part of this component of the legislation, this law would also include a mandatory period of incarceration to serve that is not subject to probation or parole.
• If a person is arrested for any of the aforementioned charges, the person arrested would be required to be held in custody until brought before the court within 24 hours for the purpose of consideration of bail.
• If a political subdivision in Alabama — such as a municipality or county — defunds a local law enforcement agency, the political subdivision in question would be barred from receiving any state grant or aid money and may not receive any allocation of any state revenues directly shared with local governments that is not otherwise already statutorily required in the Alabama Constitution.

The bill is sponsored by Republican State Rep. Allen Treadaway — a Birmingham Republican who worked more than three decades in law enforcement.

It was during Wednesday's meeting of the House Judiciary Committee that Treadaway cited his primary inspiration for the bill as being a destructive riot in May 2020 in downtown Birmingham that caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage and resulted in dozens of arrests.

"It’s pretty clear to law enforcement what happened in Birmingham was rioters, looters, criminals and two-thirds — by the way — weren’t even from the community," Treadaway argued.

State Rep. Chris England, a Democrat from Tuscaloosa who also chairs the Alabama Democratic Party, said the updated bill was indeed an improvement, but still fell well short of protecting the right to free speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

"It appears to me that the definitions are all based on who is participating in it," England said. "For some people, some people carry the benefit of the doubt. Some people carry a presumption. Generally, in America, people in America who look like me carry a presumption. People that don’t look like me carry the benefit of the doubt."

England also railed against the jail time that would be served by those accused of participating in a riot. As the bill is written, it defines a riot as "The assemblage of five or more persons resulting in conduct which creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons."

England then argued that if a group of this size or large, after receiving an order to disperse or if they are in violation of a curfew the person, would then be intentionally participating in a riot — even if those in violation of the law make up a small portion of the overall group that is peacefully protesting.

"[The definition of a riot] doesn’t require intent," he said. "All it says is if the person judging the activity, that 'I don’t like what you are doing,' they can take you into custody, hold you for 24 hours and figure it out later ... Are you comfortable with a provision of the law that basically allows a law enforcement officer to take people into custody and figure out why later? Because this is what this [bill] does."

England underscored Treadaway's own words in providing the anecdote of outside actors making up a large part of the rioters in Birmingham in the spring of 2020. He argues the fact the specific protest in question was co-opted and not a reflection of those peacefully protesting.

"This encourages law enforcement officers to find that out later than before, but that later is after I've been incarcerated for 24 hours, which for most people who are protesting in things could be a life changing moment," he said. "This means I probably missed by job ... only for you to come back and say 'you were just protesting.'"

A vocal advocate in the fight for local labor unions at the picket line — such as the ongoing UMWA strike at Warrior Met Coal in Brookwood — England then spoke to the bill's potential impact on those peacefully protesting against employers.

"You’re just mentioning what happened in Birmingham," he said. "But if you’re upset at your employer and you’re picketing outside and the employer calls the police on that person ... But picketing is constitutionally-protected speech."

Above all else with the bill, though, England asserted in the Committee meeting that intent must be the primary point of consideration when crafting such an impactful law.

"There has to be intent," he said. "There has to be some overt act … I don’t know how comfortable we are pushing forwarding with a criminal law that doesn’t require intent on the actor. It just requires presence. That’s my fundamental issue."

After spirited debate on both sides following the bill's second reading before the House Judiciary Committee, three amendments were added addressing various language and procedural components, before the bill received a favorable report from the Committee.

It will now move on to the House chamber for consideration.

Both chambers of the legislature are set to reconvene on Thursday.

Have a news tip or suggestion on how I can improve Tuscaloosa Patch? Maybe you're interested in having your business become one of the latest sponsors for Tuscaloosa Patch? Email all inquiries to me at ryan.phillips@patch.com