Texas Man Faces Up to 40 Years in Prison for Transporting Constitutionally Protected Pamphlets
The government treats anarchist zines as evidence of terrorism.
Federal prosecutions against nine members of what the Justice Department calls a "North Texas Antifa Cell," allegedly responsible for an anti-immigration enforcement demonstration that turned violent in July, are scheduled to move forward to arraignment next week. The supposed members are facing charges that range from attempted murder to providing materials to support terrorists. But it is one defendant's case, based on the transportation of "anti-law enforcement, anti-government, and anti-immigration enforcement documents," that raises serious First Amendment concerns.
On the night of July 4, anti-immigration enforcement protestors arrived at the Prairieland Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Alvarado, Texas. According to the indictment, these individuals "began shooting and throwing fireworks…and vandalizing vehicles and a guard shed." In response, a Department of Homeland Security officer called local police. Shortly after an Alvarado Police Department officer arrived, shots were allegedly fired from protestors, and the officer was nonlethally struck in the neck.
The incident eventually led to the arrest of 16 individuals, some of whom were not present at the Prairieland ICE facility during the shooting.
Although Daniel Rolando Sanchez was not at the facility when shots were fired, his wife, Maricela Reuda, was and was subsequently arrested. According to the criminal complaint filed against Sanchez, Reuda called her husband from the Johnston County Jail and told him to do "whatever you need to do, move whatever you need to move at the house."
Officers later watched Sanchez load a box from his home onto his truck and then drop it at another residence. Sanchez was stopped shortly after and arrested on state traffic offenses. Following his arrest, law enforcement conducted a search warrant at the second residence and "found in what appears to be the same box [Sanchez] was seen carrying a handwritten training, tactics, and planning document for civil unrest with anti-law enforcement, anti-government, and anti-Trump sentiments." The documents inside included zines and pamphlets ICE called on X "literal insurrectionist propaganda."
Based on this, Sanchez faces up to 40 years in prison for conspiring to and "transport[ing] a box that contained numerous Antifa materials…intending to conceal the contents of the box and impair its availability for use in a federal grand jury and federal criminal proceeding," according to the most recent indictment.
But these materials, although controversial in their advocacy for insurrection, squatting, and anarchy, are all squarely constitutionally protected speech. The government cannot infringe upon one's First Amendment right to read, possess, or write—unless the author is inciting imminent lawless action—anti-government or pro-revolution literature. And while some may see the ideas in Sanchez's box as dangerous, anti-government zines and pamphlets are far more similar to the Revolutionary-era literature popular when the First Amendment was passed than today's social media landscape, as Seth Stern of The Intercept points out.
However, after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in September designating "antifa" as a "major terrorist organization, prosecutors, like the ones in Sanchez's case, are attempting to use materials that "explicitly [call] for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law" as evidence of criminality, despite their constituitonal protection.
Sanchez's case shows why giving the government the power to designate and prosecute "domestic terrorist organizations" is so dangerous. Whether it's writing an op-ed or being lumped into the vague anti-fascist movement, sweeping government powers always lead to the same result: constitutional rights violations and shuttering dissent.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
..responsible for an anti-immigration enforcement demonstration that turned violent
There’s the real problem.
I don't know. Autumn seems a little hazy on the details.
*Shortly after an Alvarado Police Department officer arrived, shots were allegedly fired from protestors, and the officer was nonlethally struck in the neck.*
Amazing how "alleged" bullets can actually strike actual cops in the actual neck. But it was nonlethal, so we should really just shrug it off.
Yeah, need to read the full indictment (2 pages in) but Autumn is terrible here. According to the indictment defendant Song was holding a rifle an alleged to have yelled,"Get the rifles". Information that should be included, as didn't know if the neck shot was from a dangerous but non lethal Roman Candle or a very much lethal rifle.
And it now has me questioning wether like others said below the dude is getting actually charged with concealing evidence or just transporting zines.
So Sanchez wasn't charged with transporting or possession but with concealing documents or records and conspiracy to conceal documents. Counts 11 and 12.
If he wasn't involved in the protest/riot/whatever but was merely moving documents around, I'm calling BS on this. It's very possible that they're overcharging everyone just to later drop a bunch of charges they could never get convictions on. That's a pretty common prosecutorial tactic.
Given her track record, did you think for one moment that Little Autumn would be honest here?
I have no reason to think not.
Then you are stupid, dishonest or reading your first article from her.
So Autumn is complaining that a guy was arrested for hiding evidence that could be used to establish intent in a criminal trial?
I'm no lawyer, but that seems reasonable.
Yeah that's the issue, concealing evidence that I presume could be used by the government to illustrate the state of mind of the defendant to a jury. We can argue about the ethics here but it wasn't possession that led to the charges. It was his attempt to hide evidence. Not really a 1A issue.
Is it really admissible evidence of anything?
I think that is the hook in this. His woman calling him and telling him to move everything is pretty obvious. That the information calls for overthrowing the government and is anti ICE makes it not a 1st Amendment issue but evidence of the criminal intent . I think that Autumn just puts in click bait headlines and intentionally writes the story as the most ridiculous take to get comments and it works.
Leading an insurrection is legal in the US, even if it becomes an attempted coup.
Is this in support of the J6 protesters?
It's just the reality we find ourselves in today.
Well, well, if it isn’t The Mandarin. Come to spread more ChiCom lies?
Autumn, he was not arrested for the pamphlets.
He was arrested for the planning paperwork that told how they did it and why.
And that's why he'll go to prison.
For conspiring to commit terrorism.
Not for pamphlets on communist 'anarchy'.
>a handwritten training, tactics, and planning document for civil unrest with anti-law enforcement, anti-government, and anti-Trump sentiments
And there it is.
Bro had *plans* - but it's totes protected by the First!
You can have a tactical manual, but if you're part of a group planning violence that tactical manual is going to be used as part of the evidence for your conspiracy and premeditation charges.
that tactical manual is going to be used as part of the evidence for your conspiracy and premeditation charges.
But possessing it cannot itself be the sole basis for a separate charge.
I'm trying to imagine what sentence Enrique Tarrio might have received if he'd have been caught with a publication called "Organizing for Attack, your guide to an Insurrection!"
“Chapter 1: Bring guns.”
“D’oh! Ok, whose job was it……? “
Did Reason.com support the people who were miles away during January 6 or did they smile contentedly while the multi-year sentences were handed down?
They did not smile contentedly. My impression is they did not support prosecution.
Then you weren't reading anything they wrote, or you're lying.
I like Autumn, she's a nice lady. But she's a low IQ person. In her desperation to create leftist propaganda she ignores the very facts she presents in the article. It's almost like she doesn't bother to read this stuff before she clicks send. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Nah. She’s just another far left democrat shill. She can fuck off with the rest of them.
But these materials, although controversial in their advocacy for insurrection,
I stopped on this sentence and re-read it 9 times. I suspect if this exact same case had happened in say, 2014, that Reason wouldn't have made any passing reference to "insurrection" at all-- and would have steadfastly provided a full-throated right to call for insurrection as a first amendment right. But this "well, but insurrection" qualifier tells me just how much they're terri-fucking-fied of looking soft on the topic of January 6 where exactly 0 people were convicted of insurrection.
I also don't see any throat-clearing, declaring Rolando Sanchez as an "unsympathetic" character who nonetheless might be facing a sentence that could be sort of long-ish for his crime.
Another Reason article ignoring the real reason that something happened in order to put the pro illegal immigration, ant-ICE, law enforcement and anti-Trump spin on it.
This is retarded.
This isn't even a 1A issue. This is a preservation of evidence issue.
Go to any collection of newspapers. Anarchist and Arnychist have been exactly synonymous with violent communist terrorist for 200 years. Everywhere they were shot or hanged, and Lenin wouldn't even let the lewsers join the communist front. Why else would infiltrating looter terrorists insist on labeling the Libertarian Party as "anarchist"? They do it to repel voters the way Jesus Caucus MAGAts traduce us to repel voters.
That's quite the misleading headline. Whether the documents were protected by the First Amendment is irrelevant here. If you conceal evidence of a crime after getting a call from your wife in jail, it doesn't matter whether that evidence is covered by the First Amendment.
This sounds a LOT like tampering with evidence and that is NOT protected by the First Amendment.