San Ramon Pays $120K Settlement To Projection Activist

SAN RAMON, CA — It may have been one of the most expensive billboards the city never wanted to host in the first place.

San Ramon recently paid a $120,000 settlement to Alan Marling, a Livermore activist who projected “Build Back Better” onto San Ramon City Hall in November 2021. The projection referenced proposed federal legislation then under consideration in Congress. Marling, who had projected the anti-Elon Musk messages “Space Karen” and “Lawless Oligarch” on buildings in Oakland and San Francisco, told Patch that he chose San Ramon City Hall because its large, open wall was an optimal space to display his message.

He never ran into any significant trouble in Oakland or San Francisco, but his reception in San Ramon was noticeably different. San Ramon Police Department officers cited him for creating a public nuisance and obstructing the public right of way, and also allegedly threatened to confiscate his projector. Marling was detained for roughly 15 minutes before being released.

“I was there about half an hour, talked to a few people, and then the police came, and they told me I had to stop, showed me some laws that I thought clearly did not apply to what I was doing, so I said these laws don’t apply to me, and I believe they said they had a right to write me the citation. I did tell them that I was expressing my freedom of speech, I was within my rights, and I did not think that they should pursue this matter further, and they tried to tell me this was a civil matter,” he said.

The police still wrote him a $437 citation, citing violation of a local ordinance requiring an encroachment permit for signage in a public right of way. Patch has requested records of the citation from the city and the San Ramon Police Department, but did not hear back.

“I’m not a criminal defense attorney, but with $437 at stake and obviously not having broken the law, I thought they wouldn’t prosecute this to the bitter end, but that’s what they did,” said civil rights attorney Donald Wagda, who represented Marling’s case.

The city still contends that Marling violated the ordinance, but Wagda argued that he did not violate the ordinance as it was written at the time.

“The City of San Ramon requires an encroachment permit for signs in the public-right-of-way. Mr. Marling never applied for one and was cited for an infraction,” San Ramon City Attorney Martin Lysons told Patch in a statement.

“The city has changed their law since the enforcement against Mr. Marling,” Wagda said. “The new public nuisance law essentially prohibits projection on the public right-of-way in the city without a prior permit, but that law wasn’t in effect at the time. At the time, the law prohibited obstructions on the public way, which in this case was the sidewalk. And they have conflicting testimony as to whether the projection was on the sidewalk, and they presented photos that showed that it wasn’t.”

In January 2023, Marling was acquitted by Superior Court Commissioner Jill Lifter, who ruled that Marling’s projection did not count as a sign under the city’s ordinance, which required the sign to identify the city or promote commercial goods. Lifter also ruled that the sign had not encroached upon any public way. Since then, the city has updated its code to explicitly include projections.

The following month, Marling filed a federal civil rights lawsuit that alleged violations of his First Amendment right to free speech, and his Fourth Amendment rights against false arrest and retaliation. The suit alleged that Marling’s brief detention and citation amounted to an unlawful seizure and attempt to silence political expression. While a judge dismissed his First Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds, the Fourth Amendment and false arrest claims were allowed to proceed.

In April 2025, the city agreed to settle the case for $120,000, including Marling’s legal fees. They did not admit to any wrongdoing.

“In the City’s case against Mr. Marling, the judge determined that projections did not qualify as a sign. While the City disagrees with the ruling on the citation, the City’s ordinance has since been updated to eliminate any ambiguity,” Lysons said.

“The settlement was not related to Mr. Marling’s First Amendment claims, as the civil court dismissed those claims on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Rather, the settlement related to questions regarding probable cause for the initial citation.When evaluating whether to settle or continue litigating any case, the City weighs several factors, including cost of defense, impact on City services, diversion of staff time, the policies at issue, and the best interests of the City and its constituents.”

“I think the case sends an important message to municipalities that if they want to go against free speakers, they have to have very clear laws that are consistent with the standards of particularly of the courts with respect to the First Amendment so that their agents, police officers, and employees can’t come in and arbitrarily and capriciously shut down protests,” Wagda said.

“The First Amendment is important for a functioning democracy, and citizens have an option to speak if something is not right or if something is right, and the government has an obligation to not try to interfere with nonviolent protest,” Marling said. “In this case, San Ramon felt that they would prefer there be no protest of any kind, and their quibbles about some particulars of this protest certainly do not supersede the importance of the First Amendment, and I certainly don’t regret having projected there that night, and I don’t plan to stop projecting.”