People v. Sanin & Guillotin (State University of New York at New Paltz)

Summary

In May 2024, a group of pro-Palestinian students established a peaceful encampment on the SUNY New Paltz campus to protest Israeli policies. During the demonstration, campus police intervened, resulting in the arrest of several participants. Seven of these demonstrators subsequently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against SUNY New Paltz President Darrell Wheeler, Ulster County Sheriff Juan Figueroa, and other law enforcement officials. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and assembly, as well as claims of excessive force and unlawful arrest. They sought $20 million in damages and a jury trial, emphasizing the tension between student activism and campus security enforcement.

In October 2024, two alumni, Jamie Sanin and Charlie Liu Guillotin, were arrested on campus for spray-painting political messages such as “FREE GAZA” and “Your Tuition Funds Genocide” on university property. They were charged with Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree, Making Graffiti, and Possession of Graffiti Instruments. The university issued “persona non grata” letters barring them from returning to campus. News outlets described the graffiti as politically charged, noting that the arrests occurred amid ongoing debates over the rights of students and alumni to engage in public political expression on campus.

Following their arrests, Sanin and Guillotin moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the graffiti-related charges violated their First Amendment rights and that the underlying statute, New York Penal Law §145.60, was overly broad and vague. They also sought to assert a necessity defense, arguing that their actions were justified by the political context. In August 2025, Ulster County Court Judge James R. Farrell issued a ruling denying the motion to dismiss. The court held that the statute was content-neutral and did not violate constitutional protections. Judge Farrell also rejected the necessity defense, concluding that the defendants’ conduct did not meet the statutory requirements for justification under New York law.