Local opinion: The 'Tucson 4' should be 'not guilty' of trespass

Tucson has a tradition of outspoken civic life. We show up for one another, and we shouldn’t confuse peaceful dissent with danger. That is why the “Tucson 4” should be found not guilty of trespass: when residents nonviolently protest an urgent public concern, our community should not rush to criminalize that speech—especially in places that appear open to the public.

Private property rights matter. The question is whether a broadly applicable misdemeanor should punish a peaceful political message in a public-facing setting. In Tucson, we should insist on fair notice and proportionality—enforcement based on behavior, not viewpoint.

In September 2025, roughly 50 demonstrators gathered at the Jim Click Kia dealership, and eight were arrested for trespassing. A dealership showroom is typically open to the public. Protesters said they were there to speak, hold signs, and object to political donations they believe enable policies they oppose, including a reported $700,000 contribution in 2025 to Rep. Juan Ciscomani. They acknowledge a verbal warning to leave was directed to the eight of them; they had time to comply and refused as a nonviolent act meant to underscore what they see as the country’s dire distress—and the influence major donors can have on policy.

Four of those arrested pled guilty and paid a fine. The remaining four — the “Tucson 4” — (including this author) go to trial on Wednesday, April 29, at 1 p.m. in Tucson City Court (103 E. Alameda Street). Attorney Paul Gattone represents them. Supporters plan a noon press conference outside.

This trial is about more than four defendants. It’s about where Tucson draws the line between peaceful protest and criminal conduct in public-facing spaces. Refusing a verbal order to leave should not automatically mean “guilty of trespass” — especially absent violence, threats, or meaningful disruption. A not-guilty verdict would signal that Tucson can protect property rights while still leaving practical room for peaceful political protest.

Tucsonans don’t agree on every issue, but we should agree on this: the democratic response to alarm and injustice is more speech and civic engagement — not a faster path to criminal charges.

• Whether Tucson treats nonviolent protest as a civic act to be handled fairly — or as a disruption to be punished

• Whether public-facing spaces can still function as places where protected speech is practical, not chilled by arrest

• Whether enforcement decisions turn on safety and operations (violence, threats, obstruction) rather than on a protest’s message

• Whether we keep clear standards and due process nonnegotiable before labeling a neighbor a criminal

Specific points being made showing we are a country in dire distress including most recent events:

• “Blood is on your hands,” stated by the Pope specifically to President Trump regarding U.S. & Israeli attacks on Iran

• Genocide in Gaza at U.S. hands – U.S. Leahy Law disobeyed

• Extra-judicial killings by bombing small boats allegedly used for drug trafficking

• Flagrant suggestion by President Trump that sovereign nations need to be U.S. states

None of this means businesses must tolerate chaos. If people are disruptive, threatening, or block operations, intervention is appropriate. And yes — if people are told to leave and refuse, that refusal matters. But peaceful protest in a customer-facing setting is not violence or intimidation, and it should not be treated as such. Tucson can protect property rights and protect civic space by insisting on proportionality, restraint, and viewpoint-neutral enforcement.

Conclusion: The “Tucson 4” should be found not guilty of trespass — not because laws don’t matter, but because Tucson’s public life depends on room for peaceful, public protest, including protest that is uncomfortable for the powerful. If we default to criminal charges for nonviolent demonstrations in spaces that invite the public inside, we teach people to stay silent. That is not the Tucson most of us want to live in.