The Trial of Henry Contreras—“Chalk Guy”
The long-awaited justice had finally arrived for the “Chalk Guy” in Walla Walla’s District Court. The Walla Walla Union Bulletin’s Thursday 11/13 online edition has an excellent article about the proceedings. I attended the proceedings and was struck by a couple of things that I want to share with you.
Ten complaints had been lodged about his noncompliance with the City’s ordinance requiring people writing on the sidewalk to clean up their drawings by sundown the same day. (Another one was dismissed because the complainant was unable to attend court that day). The content of Contreras’ chalk messages, that is, the Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech, was not in question. Judge Hedine said that issue could be raised on appeal. Complaints against his repeated violations of the City Ordinance were heard in a series of cases that took up most of the afternoon.
The complainants were there—a retiree, a vineyard tasting room employee and several Main Street business owners including the owner of a downtown building. They told similar stories about having to install security cameras to capture “Chalk Guy” in the act, their own personal efforts to constantly clean the sidewalks of chalked messages in front of their places, and the additional costs to pay other people to do so.
It’s not that people didn’t personally ask Contreras to stop many times over the years, and to clean up as required. They did.
The ten complaints were handled individually in rapid order, with Judge Hedine declaring at the conclusion of each one whether the city’s burden of proof had been met or not. The city prevailed in each case. At the end of the proceedings Judge Hedine assessed Contreras fines of $500 per incident for a total of $5000. The judge was thorough, methodical and patient.
Contreras had chosen to represent himself in court. The Judge noted that since the ordinance was civil not criminal, Contreras was not entitled to a public defender. Contreras spent most of the afternoon with his head down writing or drawing on paper, with his hood down (the Judge had asked him to remove the hood so one could see his face). Contreras was asked for each complaint whether he wanted to cross-examine the complainant, introduce a witness or make a statement. He did not do so. Neither did he respond to the Judge’s questions after the first complaint. He had a friend in the Court who passed him notes until the Judge asked him to stop. This fellow asked to make a comment and the Judge allowed him to do so although not a lawyer or witness. He tried to raise issues that were irrelevant to the charges. As the courtroom emptied when it was over, a Contreras supporter entered the courtroom to challenge the Court proceedings even though they weren’t there for the trials—as I left I heard the Judge patiently explaining the proceedings to them. I hope it didn’t take too long.
This trial was important to me given the damage Contreras’ has done to our town, and his constant harassment of Democrats. Yes I know he videos a wide variety of protestors at public events—the rallies and protests, and actually anywhere downtown there’s a public gathering. He does, however, make a point of harassing Democrats which I have personally witnessed. He’s there videoing us and people who wish to learn more about the local party such as the 4th of July in the Park information booth, our County Fair entry, the annual Fair Parade, and more. His actions have created a sad and scary environment downtown for many people due to his relentless hate messages and intimidation. After I complained to the authorities a few years ago at the Fair about Contreras’ harassment, Sheriff Crider assured me that he is “harmless.” I disagree. No one likes an unknown person, face covered, who silently shoves his phone in their face to take a video. He delights in angering people. He goads people to get a reaction so he can tape it and I suppose post it somewhere. It is a relief to see him held to account, even if it is only for not cleaning up his chalk messages. More than once on Main Street I’ve seen visitors stop dead in their tracks as the content of one of his messages sinks in, and hear their disgust and disbelief that this was happening in Walla Walla.
Some people support his right to do all this as Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is not limitless, nor is it more important than all other civil rights. The people who support Contreras’ actions are not being his friend—just look at the large fine imposed Thursday. We Democrats observe the Constitution, and honor everyone’s civil rights. But there is a limit to free speech if it encourages violence or panic (most basically, one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire).
I know that Contreras has a voice and can speak if he wants to. He didn’t choose to in Court when confronted with the consequences of his actions.
Last summer, walking downtown with a friend we passed Contreras marking the sidewalk in front of the old Macys. My friend said to him “You don’t need to be doing that.” to which Contreras immediately replied “Oh but I want to.” Why? Who is goading him on, obviously someone who needs help, to harm himself and our community?
—Kari Isaacson