Public Order Riot Prosecutions In Usa
Public Order Riots
A public order riot occurs when a group of people engages in violent, disorderly, or destructive conduct in public spaces, often disrupting law and order. U.S. law prosecutes riots under:
Federal Law – 18 U.S.C. § 2101 (Federal Riot Act):
Prohibits traveling or using facilities in interstate commerce with intent to incite, participate in, or promote a riot.
Penalties include fines, imprisonment, or both.
State Law:
Most states criminalize rioting under criminal mischief, unlawful assembly, assault, or disorderly conduct statutes.
Key Legal Principle:
Participation in a riot is punishable even if the individual does not commit personal violence, if they intentionally aid or incite the riot.
1. United States v. Christopher Cantwell (2018)
Facts:
Christopher Cantwell participated in the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally, which devolved into violent clashes between white supremacist groups and counter-protesters.
Charges:
Federal riot charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2101.
Possession of a firearm during a civil disorder (18 U.S.C. § 930).
Legal Reasoning:
The court considered Cantwell’s active participation and public statements that encouraged violence. Evidence included videos, social media posts, and eyewitness accounts.
Outcome:
Cantwell was convicted on weapons charges and sentenced to 41 months in federal prison. The case highlighted the use of social media to incite public disorder.
2. United States v. Timothy Hale-Cusanelli (2020)
Facts:
Hale-Cusanelli was involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, storming the U.S. Capitol with a mob attempting to overturn the presidential election.
Charges:
Obstruction of an official proceeding.
Entering a restricted building.
Riot-related charges under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2101).
Legal Reasoning:
The court emphasized that the Capitol riot was a planned and coordinated public disorder event, and participants were aware of the criminal nature of their actions.
Outcome:
Hale-Cusanelli pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 33 months in prison. The case is a landmark in prosecuting coordinated public disorder at federal landmarks.
3. State of Michigan v. Walter Harris (2015)
Facts:
Harris participated in a violent protest in Detroit that turned into a riot, resulting in property damage and assaults on law enforcement officers.
Charges:
Rioting (Michigan Penal Code).
Assaulting a police officer.
Criminal damage to property.
Legal Reasoning:
The prosecution showed Harris’s direct participation in throwing objects and attacking police. Courts upheld that membership in a riot and active participation establishes criminal liability.
Outcome:
Harris was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 5 years in state prison.
4. United States v. Jermaine Alexander (2017)
Facts:
During the 2014 Ferguson protests following the shooting of Michael Brown, Alexander was arrested for participating in a riot that blocked streets and damaged public property.
Charges:
Violating federal anti-riot statutes.
Interference with interstate commerce (for damage to a business receiving interstate goods).
Legal Reasoning:
The court noted that even civil rights protests can cross into criminal rioting if participants commit violent acts. Alexander’s actions demonstrated intent to incite property destruction.
Outcome:
Alexander received 18 months in federal prison, illustrating that federal charges can apply even in protest contexts.
5. United States v. John Russell (2019)
Facts:
Russell participated in a large-scale brawl at a political rally in Washington, D.C., throwing objects and attacking attendees.
Charges:
Federal riot statute (18 U.S.C. § 2101).
Assaulting federal officers.
Destruction of government property.
Legal Reasoning:
The court held that Russell’s physical violence and intent to disrupt lawful proceedings qualified under federal riot statutes. Even partial participation in group violence was sufficient for conviction.
Outcome:
Russell was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison.
6. State of California v. Miguel Ramirez (2016)
Facts:
During the Anaheim riots, sparked by police shootings, Ramirez actively attacked police vehicles and set fires in public streets.
Charges:
Rioting under California Penal Code § 404.
Arson and vandalism.
Assault on law enforcement officers.
Legal Reasoning:
Evidence included surveillance footage and eyewitness testimony. Courts emphasized that rioters are liable for all foreseeable damage caused by their participation.
Outcome:
Ramirez was convicted and sentenced to 6 years in state prison, reinforcing strict state-level enforcement against violent public disorder.
7. United States v. Corey Johnson (2020)
Facts:
Johnson participated in the Minneapolis George Floyd riots, engaging in looting and assaulting emergency personnel.
Charges:
Federal riot statute.
Looting and destruction of property.
Assault on federal officers.
Legal Reasoning:
The prosecution showed Johnson’s active role in escalating violence, using video evidence from social media and police body cams.
Outcome:
Johnson received 4 years in federal prison, highlighting federal intervention in riots crossing state lines or involving interstate commerce.
Key Takeaways from Public Order Riot Cases
Intentional Participation Matters: Even without initiating violence, joining a riot makes individuals liable.
Federal vs. State Jurisdiction: Federal charges often apply when riots involve federal property, interstate commerce, or civil disorder statutes.
Evidence: Videos, social media posts, and eyewitness accounts play a critical role in proving participation and intent.
Associated Charges Increase Penalties: Assault, vandalism, arson, and weapons charges are often combined with riot prosecutions.
Protest vs. Riot: Courts carefully distinguish between lawful protest and criminal riot; violence, property destruction, and intimidation are key factors.
RELATED Blog
comments