Federal judge reviews claims CMPD used unlawful force against Charlotte protesters during demonstrations in June 2020

What the court is examining

A federal judge is weighing whether the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department used unlawful force against people demonstrating in uptown Charlotte during protests in June 2020. The review centers on whether crowd-control tactics employed during marches following George Floyd’s death crossed constitutional limits governing police use of force and restrictions on government actions that burden free speech and assembly.

The legal scrutiny arises from civil litigation tied to the police response on June 2, 2020, when a group of protesters walking along Fourth Street between Tryon and College streets was boxed in and exposed to chemical agents and other munitions. Plaintiffs in related cases have argued that people engaged in peaceful protest were subjected to indiscriminate tactics, while city and police attorneys have generally maintained officers were responding to public-safety threats and evolving conditions.

Key events at issue from June 2020

Court filings and publicly released video evidence have placed particular focus on the “kettling” tactic used on Fourth Street, a maneuver described by plaintiffs as trapping demonstrators and limiting avenues of exit. In August 2020, body-worn camera footage released pursuant to a court order captured officers discussing the planned deployment of tear gas shortly before it was used.

In the days after the June 2 incident, civil rights organizations and local groups sought emergency court intervention in state court. A temporary restraining order issued in June 2020 imposed limits on CMPD’s ability to kettle peaceful protesters and restricted the use of certain munitions for crowd control unless specified conditions were met.

• June 2, 2020: Protesters were boxed in on Fourth Street in uptown Charlotte during a march; chemical agents were deployed.
• June 19, 2020: A judge granted temporary restrictions on specific crowd-control actions, including limits related to kettling and munitions use.
• Later in 2020: A judge signed an order enabling the release of CMPD body-worn camera footage from the June 2 protest.

How policies and agreements changed afterward

Subsequent litigation produced a multi-year settlement framework that required revisions to CMPD directives on protest policing. Terms described in the agreement included banning CS tear gas at protests, prohibiting the use of chemical agents to facilitate kettling, requiring clearer and repeated dispersal orders in English and Spanish, and setting parameters around the use of pepper-ball munitions and bicycles as weapons during protests.

The legal standard in these disputes generally turns on whether force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and whether police actions unlawfully burdened protected speech and assembly.

What comes next

The judge’s assessment will help determine whether claims alleging unlawful force can proceed and what legal constraints, if any, should govern future protest responses. The outcome also carries implications for city liability and for the enforceability of negotiated limits on crowd-control tools during demonstrations.