Legal analysis: Are the REA's actions actually illegal?
I'm a former public defender and current contributing opinion writer for The Dead Drop. I want to lay out the legal landscape here because I'm seeing a lot of confusion in the comments. This is analysis, not legal advice.
PORTLAND SHIELD ACTION:
Standing at a protest in tactical gear is almost certainly protected under the First Amendment. The key legal tests:
- Were they peaceful? Yes.
- Were they armed? No reports of weapons.
- Did they threaten anyone? No.
- Were they on public property? Yes.
The "paramilitary" angle is interesting. Several states have anti-paramilitary training statutes, but they require proof of *training for or practice of* civil disorder. Standing in a line is not civil disorder. The gear itself is not illegal.
MARICOPA LAMP ACTION:
This is more complicated. Leaving something at someone's mailbox at 2 AM is not illegal per se — it's not trespassing if you're on a path reasonably used by the public (like a mailbox approach). The contents of the envelope are the key issue. If they contained stolen personnel records, that could implicate theft of government property, depending on how they were obtained. But the *delivery* alone? Probably not criminal.
MILWAUKEE FOOTAGE:
Publishing leaked body cam footage is protected under the First Amendment (see *Bartnicki v. Vopper*, 2001). The person who *took* the footage from the department may have committed a crime, but the publisher is generally protected.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
The REA appears to be operating in a legal gray zone that is, frankly, brilliantly constructed. Each action individually sits on or just inside the line of legality. The *pattern* of actions might eventually give prosecutors an argument for conspiracy or RICO, but that's a heavy lift when each individual act is arguably legal or constitutionally protected.
Someone with serious legal knowledge designed this framework.