What were common charges for people arrested during the 2020 George Floyd protests?
Executive summary
Most people arrested during the 2020 George Floyd protests were cited on low‑level, public‑order charges such as curfew violations, obstructing roadways, disorderly conduct, or unlawful assembly, while a smaller but notable subset faced serious state or federal charges — including arson, property destruction, and alleged terrorism‑related offenses — and many of the initial charges were ultimately dropped [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Arrest scale and the predominance of low‑level public‑order charges
Law enforcement arrested thousands nationwide during the summer of 2020 — analyses put the number in the neighborhood of 10,000–14,000 people — and multiple sources show the majority of those bookings were for public‑order offenses tied to curfews, blocking streets, or refusing dispersal rather than for violent crimes [5] [6] [1].
2. Curfew, blocking roadways, disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly were common top charges
City and oversight records illustrate that curfew and related offenses were routinely used as the “top” charge: New York data showed a large share of arrests listed curfew or other public‑order violations as the leading allegation, and the DOI investigation found many arrests classified under disorderly conduct or unlawful assembly [2] [1].
3. Many charges were dismissed, revealing crowd‑control dynamics
Contemporaneous reporting and follow‑up analyses found prosecutors dropped or declined to pursue a large share of protest‑related cases; The Guardian reported vast percentages of citation and charge dismissals in cities such as New York, and local decisions to drop curfew‑only cases (for example in Denver) further underscore that a significant portion of arrests functioned as crowd control rather than prosecutable criminality [3] [7].
4. A smaller but consequential set of arrests involved property damage, arson, and violent crimes
Beyond public‑order citations, law enforcement and prosecutors singled out acts involving broken windows, arson, looting, and assaults on property or officers; the Department of Justice and local prosecutors pursued these more serious incidents, and settlements such as New York’s $13 million agreement expressly excluded people arrested for arson or property destruction, signaling how authorities differentiated types of conduct [4] [8] [9].
5. Federal cases and allegations of organized violence raised stakes for some defendants
While most arrests were handled locally, federal authorities opened hundreds of cases tied to the disturbances: the DOJ reported charging over 300 people in multiple states for crimes “committed adjacent to or under the guise of peaceful demonstrations,” and specialized investigations led to terrorism‑style charges in rare instances where individuals allegedly plotted or carried out coordinated violent acts [4] [10] [6].
6. Outcomes varied dramatically — from dropped citations to multi‑year federal sentences
Outcomes ranged from dismissal of curfew citations to convictions with substantial penalties; watchdog reporting and case studies show most low‑level prosecutions did not progress, yet some defendants convicted of acts like burning a police cruiser or setting fires received multi‑year federal sentences, reflecting how the venue (state vs. federal) and the alleged act shaped exposure to harsher penalties [3] [11] [4].
7. Competing narratives: crowd control vs. legitimate criminal enforcement
Advocates and many prosecutors framed mass arrests as crowd‑control tactics that swept up peaceful demonstrators and later proved legally tenuous, while law enforcement and the DOJ emphasized the need to target individuals who exploited protests to commit arson, looting, or organized violence; both narratives find support in the record — mass curfew arrests and subsequent dismissals on one hand [3] [7], and federal prosecutions and targeted terrorism‑linked cases on the other [4] [10].
8. Limits of available reporting and what remains unclear
Public data sets, prosecutorial disclosures, and news audits provide a clear picture of common charge categories and major case outcomes, but comprehensive, person‑level national statistics that reconcile local and federal charges, differentiate peaceful protesters from unrelated criminals, and track final dispositions for every arrest remain incomplete in the public record; reporting cited here reflects jurisdictional snapshots and aggregated counts from watchdog groups and official statements [5] [6] [2].