|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A Tri-Valley activist and projection artist and his Danville-based attorney announced a settlement agreement last week in a years-long lawsuit against the city of San Ramon stemming from a 2021 incident in which the activist was detained for displaying digital projections on the City Hall building.
Livermore resident Alan Marling and civil rights attorney Donald Wagda remained critical of the city and its police department in a press release announcing the $120,000 settlement agreement reached with the city – in which the city of San Ramon admits no wrongdoing – questioning officials’ decision to prosecute Marling on criminal charges that he was later acquitted of and the cost associated with the case amid the city’s ongoing budget struggles.
“Mr. Marling’s projection activity did not break any law then in effect, and he never should have been criminally prosecuted for his speech–let alone all the way through trial and acquittal,” Wagda said in the May 12 press release. “How many thousands of taxpayer dollars did the City of San Ramon waste paying an outside private attorney to pursue criminal infraction penalties totalling $437.00?”
Marling was acquitted on those criminal charges in January 2023, going on to retain Wagda’s services and file a civil rights lawsuit against the city and its police department the following month.
In the lawsuit – which was dismissed as of April 15 according to the terms of the recent settlement agreement – Marling alleged that his first and fourth amendment rights were violated when he was detained in November, 2021 for projecting a message on San Ramon City Hall in support of then-president Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Plan, which was passed in 2022, and that he was wrongfully detained for approximately 15 minutes by SRPD officers, who allegedly threatened to confiscate his projection equipment.
“When evaluating whether to settle or continue litigating any case, the City weighs several factors, including cost of defense, impact on City services, diversion of staff time, the policies at issue, and the best interests of the City and its constituents,” City Attorney Martin Lysons said.
SRPD was granted qualified immunity by a judge in the civil case against the city, but the judge allowed false arrest and fourth amendment violation allegations to proceed through the courts.
Lysons underscored this point, noting that “the settlement related to questions regarding probable cause for the initial citation.”
“Through its actions, the City of San Ramon has shown that it does not value free speech but silence,” Marling said in the statement announcing the update in his case. “Not constitutionality but conformity. Not rule of law but blind obedience.”
“Blind obedience” is something Marling’s projection activism has been generally critical of, with some of his most prominent displays having been at the former San Francisco headquarters of X – formerly known as Twitter – following its purchase by Elon Musk. In addition to continued criticism of Musk amid his new role in the current presidential administration, Marling’s messages have critiqued U.S. aid for Israel as the Palestinian death toll rises in Gaza.
Marling’s work has also been critical of prominent democrats, including Biden, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), and Gov. Gavin Newsom, although it includes an endorsement of recently elected Oakland Mayor and former U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee.
While Marling’s 2021 projection at San Ramon City Hall supporting Biden’s Build Back Better plan was a relatively non-controversial message in comparison to some of his other works, he alleges in the civil lawsuit against the city that it made him a target by city officials and police, and that his detention and criminal charges in the case he was acquitted on are the results of their efforts to silence him.
For their part, city officials contend that Marling’s acquittal on the criminal charges brought against him in 2021 came down to wording in the city’s municipal code that has since been updated.
“The City of San Ramon requires an encroachment permit for signs in the public-right-of-way,” Lysons said. “Mr. Marling never applied for one and was cited for an infraction. In the City’s case against Mr. Marling, the judge determined that projections did not qualify as a sign. While the City disagrees with the ruling on the citation, the City’s ordinance has since been updated to eliminate any ambiguity.”
According to Marling and Wagda’s press release, the $120,000 payout from the city “appears to be the largest publicly-reported settlement amount ever paid to a lone plaintiff in a Fourth Amendment case not involving any search or use of physical force.”
Pleasanton council shows early support for annexation, downtown plan, other priority projectsMarch 25, 2026 2:36 pm
Nighttime lane closures on I-580 near Pleasanton, I-680 through San Ramon ValleyMarch 25, 2026 2:05 pm