Steve Taylor walks free after lack of ‘sufficient evidence’ results in not guilty verdict
BY: MELISSA WILKINSON
Editor-in-Chief
Valentine’s day had a different meaning this year for Steve Taylor when he was acquitted of charges pressed by STLCC. The former Wildwood adjunct faculty member came to national attention in October after being body slammed by an armed policeman at a Board of Trustees meeting.
Taylor was speaking out in regards to a board policy, which permitted clapping for administrative presentations but not during the public forum section of the meeting, when he began approaching the board and was subsequently tackled from behind.
Taylor was originally charged with both peace disturbance and resisting arrest. The latter charge, however, was dropped almost at once, a fact which the Riverfront Times attributes to a video released by the college of Taylor approaching the board showing him “in no way resisting.”
Late afternoon on Feb. 14, a municipal court judge dismissed the peace disturbance charge. According to Meramec student Xavier Phillips, who testified on Taylor’s behalf, the judge’s closing statement left no ambiguity.
“The judge’s closing remark was, ‘There’s no way this court could or would or should charge this man…The city has failed to provide sufficient evidence that this man has broken any ordinance,” said Phillips.
Taylor described himself as “thankful” regarding the outcome of his trial. While he wouldn’t say whether or not the outcome was expected, he did suggest that his lawyers might have predicted such a judgement.
“I was told that the law was on my side and that was the case,” said Taylor. “The court’s decision was proper and correct.”
While Taylor himself did not testify on his own behalf, Phillips said the defense presented a video of the board meeting from the back angle. In addition to Phillips, Forest Park adjunct faculty Brett Williams also testified, stating that Taylor was not aggressive and did not charge the board.
Testifying for Officer Robert Caples, the policeman who tackled Taylor, were two other STLCC police officers.
“They argued that [Taylor’s] behavior before the incident was somehow concerning or unusual. They tackled him simply because of the trustee’s fear for their lives, which is not something they could know,” said Phillips.
Phillips said he became nervous as the policemen testified, as they seemed to truly believe that they made the right call. However, the judge sided in favor of Taylor, establishing a need “to balance First Amendment Rights with the need for security of public officials.”
“Terms of engagement are not legally binding. The board can [establish rules] but they are not necessarily…making laws,” said Phillips. “I think the board was a little too sure of itself. It shows there’s a precedent for how these matters will be dealt with. The courts are willing to side with people’s right to speak to public figures.”
The outcome of Taylor’s case may impact future legal proceedings. In late January, Taylor officially filed a lawsuit against STLCC in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, with a trial by jury demanded. Taylor is suing for 10 different counts including First Amendment violations, unlawful search and seizure and libel.
According to Lauren E. Bronson, one of Taylor’s lawyers, there is no timeline for when Taylor’s case will be heard.
“It will probably be a while. It was just filed last month,” said Bronson. “I would predict at least a year. Probably more than a year.”
Phillips said he believes STLCC will try to prevent the case from going to trial, but Taylor will not accept a settlement.
“He doesn’t want to settle. He wants them to face justice,” said Phillips. “It will be a long legal battle. I don’t think he’s afraid of that and I don’t think that’s what the college wants. But when you do wrong there are consequences. They tried to end this man’s career. I think it was a [despicable] move to charge him for disrupting peace when the disruption was him getting body slammed.”
Also in question is Taylor’s “No Trespass” order, which prohibits him from setting foot on any STLCC campus. According to the 2017 Annual Security Report released by STLCC, a “No Trespass” order can be filed against someone “if there is enough reason to believe (through investigation) that an individual is likely to cause harm to any member on campus.” With all charges dropped against Taylor, there may no longer be legal reason to uphold the order.
Regarding the legality of the situation, Bronson said she was unsure.
“That’s a good question,” said Bronson. “I’m looking into that myself.”
Whether or not the decision is upheld, Phillips said the result will be “interesting.”
“What they can’t use as a justification now is that he is a threat to the community,” said Phillips. “I think they should accept that they don’t have a case against Steve Taylor.”
STLCC representatives were unavailable for comment. More on this story as it develops.
