Man Fights Back: Phoenix Police Arrest Sparks Landmark First Amendment Trial

A man is challenging the Phoenix Police Department in federal court, alleging First Amendment retaliation during a protest incident in 2019. Phil Martinez claims he was unlawfully detained without having engaged in any illegal activity.

Martinez, a vocal critic of the Phoenix Police, recounts his arrest at a protest he did not attend. While riding the light rail, he was instructed to disembark and walk nearly a mile to the next station after protesters obstructed the track in opposition to the treatment of migrant children at a local ICE facility.

As he attempted to pass, officers prevented him from doing so, leading to a heated exchange. Martinez argued with the officers, using offensive language, which he contends prompted his arrest. He states that he did not hear any announcements regarding unlawful assembly from Lieutenant Benjamin Moore or others present.

His attorney, Mart Harris, pointed out that many protesters blocked the light rail for over an hour and received no arrests, highlighting a perceived inconsistency in the police’s actions. Martinez admits to having been arrested multiple times for related offenses, such as blocking traffic and resisting arrest, all while protesting police violence.

During the cross-examination, defense attorney John Masterson queried Martinez about his past conduct, particularly his contentious interactions with police. Martinez acknowledged that, in earlier statements, he had admitted police might reasonably detain him for disobeying dispersal orders, yet asserted he never heard such an order that day.

Masterson noted instances where Martinez labeled officers as white supremacists and other derogatory terms, which the plaintiff acknowledged. The trial also introduced evidence involving Jorge Soria, another protester who faced arrest for brandishing a Soviet flag while denouncing the police.

Sergeant Jeffrey Miel testified about his perspective on Soria’s actions, stating that waving the flagpole was perceived as threatening. However, inconsistencies arose when it was revealed that Miel did not include these details in the police report, raising questions about the documented evidence of the incident.

Soria, echoing Martinez’s sentiments, claims his arrest was punitive in nature, linked to the inflammatory nature of his protests. Harris presented video evidence to demonstrate that Soria’s alleged violent actions could not be substantiated, with Sergeant Erick Selvius unable to confirm seeing any aggression on the footage.

The trial continues as Lieutenant Moore is expected to resume his testimony. This case raises critical questions about the balance between law enforcement authority and the protection of constitutional rights during public demonstrations.