The shards of broken glass have all been swept up and the smell of tear gas has long cleared the air, but remnants of the WTO protests that rocked Seattle seven years ago still linger in this city.

Now, the "Battle in Seattle" has left the streets and moved to the courtroom.

As many as 200 protesters who were arrested while demonstrating against the World Trade Organization are suing the City of Seattle for violating their constitutional rights. The trial, which began Jan. 9, is being held before a federal jury, and could end up costing the city millions should the plaintiffs' attorney, Mike Withey, prove his case.

The plaintiffs, including several former UW students, contend that while they peacefully protested, Seattle police violated their constitutional rights.

The arrests in question were made Dec. 1, 1999, day two of the riots, in which 50,000 people overwhelmed downtown, shutting down the WTO meeting and sending the city into a state of emergency.

Denise Cooper, one of the primary plaintiffs in the case, is a former UW student who was arrested while participating in a student-organized demonstration Dec. 1. Cooper cannot comment on the trial until it is over.

In response to the riots, then-Mayor Paul Schell declared the downtown area a "no-protest zone" and implemented a curfew that barred demonstrators from certain areas.

This "no-protest area," which encompassed the core of downtown, was supposed to only be open to WTO delegates, police and emergency workers, residents, employees and shoppers. Those who were perceived as being downtown in order to protest against the WTO were arrested on the grounds that they were violating curfew.

The constitutional issue at the heart of this case is that if police made arrests based on whether an individual was perceived as being a protester (say, if that person was carrying a sign or wearing a button), then the police were in violation of the First Amendment.

Brooke Rolston was the pastor at the Covenant House, a UW campus ministry, at the time of the WTO convention.

He helped organize and marched with the UW student demonstration on Nov. 30, and then returned downtown during the following days to protest the arrests of some of the students.

Rolston has been attending recent court proceedings in support of the plaintiffs.

"This is not a question of money," he said. "This is a question of principle. The city singled out these people because of the content of their speech. These people were arrested because of their attempt to speak out against the WTO."

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman has already ruled that police did indeed make arrests without probable cause, which violates the Fourth Amendment.

According to the ruling, police did not attempt to determine whether people were permitted to be in the zone — instead, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) began arresting anyone deemed likely to be a protester.

If the prosecuting attorney can prove police arrested people based on the views they were propagating and that officers making these arrests were directed to do so by the SPD higher-ups, the city could end up paying millions during the subsequent liability phase of this trial.

The plaintiffs are also contending that the behavior of police constituted further violations of their rights.

According to testimony by several plaintiffs, officers confiscated signs they were carrying and barred particular residents from entering the "no-protest zone" because it was deemed they might protest.

Ted Buck, the city's attorney, contends that police were simply working to maintain law and order and made arrests based solely on the demonstrators' violation of the curfew, regardless of their beliefs.

On Jan. 16, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper testified on behalf of the city.

Stamper, who resigned shortly after the WTO debacle, said it wasn't the policy of the SPD or city leaders to arrest people based on their views.

According to the Associated Press, Stamper said in his testimony that if Schell had given him such a directive, he wouldn't have complied.

"I would have fought it," he said. "If I had lost the battle, I would have offered my resignation."

Schell's implementation of the curfew was ruled constitutional in a 2000 decision by the U.S. 9th District Court.

In that ruling, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein ruled the intent of the curfew was to maintain public safety, not to quell freedom of expression.

"The evidence shows that [the city] had reason to implement the zone," Rothstein wrote in her ruling, which was released to the AP. "The police had faced violent clashes with protesters for nearly 24 hours, and there is no evidence that the violence was expected to subside."

This ruling was a setback for protesters.

"It was to my sadness that the 9th District Court held that the 'no-protest zone' was constitutional," said Rolston. "I can't believe it."

Rolston said he is confident, however, that the outcome of the trial will be in the protestors' favor.

"I can never lose hope," he said.

The trial continues in the 9th District Court, which is expected give its ruling within several weeks.

Reach reporter Siv Prince at news@thedaily.washington.edu