F.4th, 2024 WL 11996876

Protestors’ First Amendment claims rejected on ground that demonstration presented a clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness; verbal dispersal order not required before officers may clear the area.

Rejecting claims of constitutional violations by dispersing protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and “flash-bang grenades”; dispersal of protestors by airborne transmission of chemical irritants and auditory and visual irritants does not constitute a seizure under Fourth Amendment because intent to disperse does not constitute an intent to restrain under Torres v.