Anyone know the law here? Cannot sign wave without a permit??
Submitted by abc123 on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 13:30There was about 6 of us sign waving this morning on Hwy 31 by the Galleria and lots of cops drove by us without any problem. Then this one cop walks up saying we needed a "Parade Permit" even though we we were on the right of way.
THAT IS exactly the reason to get Ron Paul elected. All over the city of Hoover you have people with signs over the road with Going out business, 70% Off, Xmas Tree sale, etc. but somehow 6 guys with Ron Paul signs cannot exercise political speech......
I don't want to rant too much but I'm upset to say the least......
Anyone know how to combat this?
»
What they describe as parade
What they describe as parade doesn't seem to describe what you folks were doing. It talks about funeral processions, runs, races, or anything involving movement down streets or public parks.
By the way I live over in homewood.
Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150
I think the case you want is
Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150
Read about it on Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Society_v._Village_o...
Read the actual case at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...
Read the case before you use it; always proceed on your own real knowledge, not just on what somebody told you!
This 2002 case states that where the government cannot cite a solid overriding interst, regulations aimed at businesses and everyday activities do not apply to "elevated" forms of speech, i.e., political and religious speech. The case itself ruled that a requirement to get a solicitation permit to go door to door handing out literature and asking for money could not be applied to a religious activity - nor, by extension, to a political one.
The applicability here is that political speech is "elevated" by the constitution and cannot be prevented by regulations that might well apply to lesser types of speech, such as business advertising.
What I'd say to the cop as I hand him a copy of the case is, "I understand that you have that law, but according to the Supreme Court, it probably doesn't apply to what we're doing because political speech gets extra protection. Please have your [city/county/state] attorney check it out and let me know if I'm wrong."
Actually, that is exactly what I have already done in several instances, and the cop always goes away, never to return.
Mind you, if you're on private property it doesn't help you, the case says the owner or its rep can ask you (or have a cop ask you) to leave: they have their own rights.
Note,, if you are standing in driveways, or blocking the sidewalk for other people, or blocking motorists' view across intersections or around corners and into driveways, you are creating a safety situation and this argument will not protect you. It's about holding your signs appropriately and not creating a wall. Don't give them the overriding public interest and you should be fine.
If it irks anyone that a church has done the work of defending liberty better than the freedom movement, just live with it to date, and think about why: the movement isn't organized to ensure its advocacy . 42% of the population still prefers freedom, but isn't organized to defend it. The ACLU doesn't even do the part about enforcing laws that govern government.
That's why I and a few others started LawfulGov.Org - directly organize the activist segment of the freedom movement and take constructive political and legal action to defend liberty, and present instructional materials (such as this case), so activists can stand on their own: tools, information, training, candidate ratings, other stuff, and when necesary as we grow and can afford it, legal challenges to government incomptetence and encroachments on our rights.
Check it out as the site develops over the next couple of weeks. Email me if you're interested, until the membership form goes online, then use it. Basic membership and access to things like this case will be free.
Allen Hacker
LP Judicial Committee
(LP is not affiliated with LawfulGov.Org; LP did not sanction this message)
Email: allen AT lawfulgov.org
-0-
www.LawfulGov.Org
Your Nexus to the Freedom Movement
also
Thanks for sharing this story with us, I admire your courage!!
Heres a thought
You have to be strong and stand your ground , similiar to martin luther kings movement. when they cops violate the law we got and rally infront of them and use the internet to show everyone what they did and sue the city. This video I sent to all my friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQAJgxMIuM&eurl=http://www.s...
I think he will win his law suit he clearly knows his rights and the law enforcer didnt either did the city official. I hope they get sued and the 2 public officials are fired. We need to stand up to this!!
Of Course, You Could Always
go to the police station and ask for a complaint form. But, be careful doing so, or this could happen to you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p53ky3RIjfU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_kBL7oUKCs
Florida Law Unconstitutional and Invalid
http://www.aele.org/law/2003LRJUN/bvf.html
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ORLANDO DIVISION
CHERYL BISCHOFF, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 6:98-cv-583-Orl-28JGG
242 F. Supp. 2d 1226
January 2, 2003, Decided
January 3, 2003, Filed
ORDER[*1228]
III. Conclusion
Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:
5. It is further Ordered that sections 316.2045 and 316.2055, Florida Statutes are found facially unconstitutional and invalid.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida this 2nd day of January, 2003.
JOHN ANTOON II, United States District Judge
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Florida Statue 316.2045
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to inhibit political campaigning on the public right-of-way or to require a permit for such activity.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Well known Ron Paul Supporter gets arrested for JAYWALKING!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmPi2GbbUes
http://www.leeclerk.org/Criminal_detail_new.asp?CsNum=07-CT-...
http://www.sheriffleefl.org/about/jaildetention/arrestbk.asp...
In Maryville, TN...
we have to get a parade permit to do a sign waving. They only allow 10 of us to hold signs so the rest of us wear Ron Paul t-shirts. The ones without the signs smile and wave at the cars as they drive by.
Ok, I'm pumped.....
I'm going out again, alone this time I'll have my camera rolling in my locked car in my direction.......
Permits Needed for Everything
Some cities, atleast mine in South Florida, won't even let you have a live band play on your own private property without a permtit. We wrote the mayor, and asked him how he could allow a city that demands a permit, to get a permit. If anyone lives in South Florida, DEC 29th huge block party in Pompano Beach. Every Ron Paul supporter is invited. Sort21@gmail.com
Found this
Under Pressure from ACLU of Arkansas, City Officials Revise Unconstitutional Parade Ordinance (7/20/2004)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
LITTLE ROCK, AR-- The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas announced today that Nashville city officials have revised their policy on parade permits after complaints by the ACLU charged that a city ordinance violated residents' First Amendment rights.
"Had this ordinance not been amended, Nashville would have violated the Constitution's First Amendment right to freedom of speech, to 'peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,'" said ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Rita Sklar. "These rights are the cornerstones of a free society."
The original ordinance, which was passed in response to a peaceful demonstration held by 100 African Americans after Nashville native Nicky Hill died in police custody, required at least 30 days notice to obtain a permit for 25 or more people to gather in a manner that would disrupt normal traffic patterns.
"If the people believe the government has done something wrong and they want to express their views about it, they shouldn't have to apply for a permit and wait 30 days to do it," Sklar said. "That is not the American way."
After receiving complaints from Nashville residents, the ACLU conferred with city attorney James Graves about changing the language of the ordinance. The city ultimately proposed an amended ordinance, which requires only two business days notice, and permits a parade or gathering upon 24 hours notice in the case of news or affairs, which are occasions for a "spontaneous" demonstration. With these modifications, the ACLU accepted the city's latest proposal. It was enacted as ordinance #808 on June 22.
"We're glad Nashville authorities decided to avoid a court battle and fix the ordinance, and thereby protect the free speech of their constituents," said Grif Stockley, an ACLU of Arkansas staff attorney.
he might like ron paul
he had to claim "no parade permit" because when I demonstrate, you can't stand on the side walk and loiter or block traffic.
but it might just be that he's using his authority to be a jerk since he supports another candidate.
i'd just tell him: "thanks."
Holding signs in public is
Holding signs in public is done all the time. The abortion protesters do it. And the Supreme Court has upheld their right to do it. Attaching a sign to something on public property is another matter. That you probably need permission for. But to stand out of the way on a side walk holding a sign is protected political speech.
Cop breaking up sign waiving
Many cities have parade ordinances, but they usually would only apply to a event large enough to require closing a street and re-routing traffic. The attempt to apply it to six people waiving political signs is surely unconstitutional.
Get the cop's name and badge number. Start by filing a complaint against him with the Police Department. You might consider contacting the local ACLU to see if they wish to become involved.
I'm not or lawyer, a legal
I'm not or lawyer, a legal expert, or even have a college degree, but if I know one thing, its how to deal with cops....
The very fact that several cops went past without telling you to stop before that one did says something. If that happens again, the first thing you should do is inform the officer that others haven't stopped you yet. Sometimes this works. Many cops will allow their disagreement with your message to cause them to try and silence you, and they'll go as far as lying to do so.
Another trick is to demand to speak to their superior. This will often anger them, but if you are in the right, you have nothing to fear. Take down their badge number and get their name. Several times, I've spoken to commanding officers who have informed me that we did have a right to be holding a demonstration, despite what the officer on the scene would tell us.
You shouldn't have to get arrested to prove a point, but if the cop begins threatening arrest, and you are sure that you are in the right, then call their bluff. Inform them that by wrongfully arresting you, they open themselves up to a lawsuit. If you're someplace where this happens frequently (like Washington DC), then that will almost always "scare" them away. I have three friends who went to college on the money they won from wrongful arrest lawsuits.
And be wary of ANYONE who claims to be an off-duty officer or a plainclothes cop. I had a dude pull a gun on me once after myself and several friends refused to stop picketing an event he was attending. He claimed to be an off-duty cop, but had nothing to prove it (other than his gun). I called the police, asking them to send someone over to sort things out (I was on a public sidewalk, and had every legal right to be there). Before I could even thank the dispatcher, the guy had taken off.
Don't let them intimidate you, stand your ground, and don't always trust the cops.
Good luck!
Thanks.
All of this does not help me for now, but it serves to inform others as it seems to be happening all over the place...
A similar incident occurred
A similar incident occurred in Madison, Wisconsin yeasterday. We had a few people holding Ron Paul signs over the beltline (a four lane expressway that goes around Madison). After about two hours, the cops showed up and made everyone leave.
I was not there, but heard about it on the radio and from some emails, maybe someone else can fill us in.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
The first thing i would do
The first thing i would do is ask the officer for NAME, BADGE NUMBER, AND THE NAME OF HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS.
Then i would ask him to show you the law that states such a permit is required.
Then i would file a complaint with his superior officer for harassment.
Then i would sue him for harassment in civil court.
I also suggest when you people sign wave bring a video camera to record any such actions you may encounter.
Dr. Steve Parent
We're behind you!
Keep us posted. It'd be cool to hide a video cam and go back out there. I'll chip in for your legal defense... :)
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
Check your state constitution too
Check your state's constitution too. City ordinances are frequently unconstitutional. Cities pass whatever they want and hope no one challenges it.
Call the City attorney's office
Call the City Attorney's office. Tell them your issue. Be polite. Tell them you don't want a confrontation or any headlines. But be firm that you are not going to get a permit before you stand on a street corner with a political sign. Explain that you have sign waves all the time, at different places, on short notice and that getting a permit is not an option. Ask him to please advise the police force to leave you alone.
It was probably just a cop who supports Rudy McRomsonbee.
Sounds like good advice...
I'll do this come Monday morning - specially after being pumped from the Tea Party.
I am really Laughing out Loud!!
A PARADE????
How many floats did you have, and how many bands attended?
A PARADE....Give me a BREAK!
From the Supreme Court
Leafleting, Handbilling, and the Like .--In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 162 the Court struck down a permit system applying to the distribution of circulars, handbills, or literature of any kind. The First Amendment, the Court said, ''necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest.'' 163 State courts, responding to what appeared to be a hint in Lovell that prevention of littering and other interests might be sufficient to sustain a flat ban on literature distribution, 164 upheld total prohibitions and were reversed. ''Mere legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions . . . . We are of the opinion that the purpose to keep the streets clean and of good appearance is insufficient to justify an ordinance which prohibits a person rightfully on a public street from handing literature to one willing to receive it. Any burden imposed upon the city authorities in cleaning and caring for the streets as an indirect consequence of such distribution results from the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech and press.'' 165 In Talley v. California, 166 the Court struck down an ordinance which banned all handbills that did not carry the name and address of the author, printer, and sponsor; conviction for violating the ordinance was set aside on behalf of one distributing leaflets urging boycotts against certain merchants because of their employment discrimination. The basis of the decision is not readily ascertainable. On the one hand, the Court celebrated anonymity. ''Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all . . . . [I]dentification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussion of public matters of importance.'' 167 On the other hand, responding to the City's defense that the ordinance was aimed at providing a means to identify those responsible for fraud, false advertising, and the like, the Court noted that it ''is in no manner so limited . . . [and] [t]herefore we do not pass on the validity of an ordinance limited to these or any other supposed evils.'' 168 Talley's anonymity rationale was strengthened in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, Supp.68 invalidating Ohio's prohibition on the distribution of anonymous campaign literature. There is a ''respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes,'' the Court noted, and neither of the interests asserted by Ohio justified the limitation. The State's interest in informing the electorate was ''plainly insufficient,'' and, while the more weighty interest in preventing fraud in the electoral process may be accomplished by a direct prohibition, it may not be accomplished indirectly by an indiscriminate ban on a whole category of speech. Ohio could not apply the prohibition, therefore, to punish anonymous distribution of pamphlets opposing a referendum on school taxes.
The handbilling cases were distinguished in City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, Supp.69 in which the Court held that a city may prohibit altogether the use of utility poles for posting of signs. While a city's concern over visual blight could be addressed by an anti-littering ordinance not restricting the expressive activity of distributing handbills, in the case of utility pole signs ''it is the medium of expression itself'' that creates the visual blight. Hence, the city's prohibition, unlike a prohibition on Distributing handbills, was narrowly tailored to curtail no more speech than necessary to accomplish the city's legitimate purpose. Supp.70 Ten years later, however, the Court unanimously invalidated a town's broad ban on residential signs that permitted only residential identification signs, ''for sale'' signs, and signs warning of safety hazards. Supp.71 Prohibiting homeowners from displaying political, religious, or personal messages on their own property entirely foreclosed ''a venerable means of communication that is unique and important,'' and that is ''an unusually cheap form of communication'' without viable alternatives for many residents. Supp.72 The ban was thus reminiscent of total bans on leafleting, distribution of literature, and door-to-door solicitation that the Court had struck down in the 1930s and 1940s. The prohibition in Vincent was distinguished as not removing a ''uniquely valuable or important mode of communication,'' and as not impairing citizens' ability to communicate. Supp.73
Call me slow, but how does this apply to a guy on the side
of the read holding a sign on the side of the road?
Thanks for the posting Treber
I've made a copy to carry with me along with my copy of the Constitution.
I'm just waiting for the first cop to give me any lip.
Get arrested
Refuse to leave. Get arrested and sue.
I don't need to get arrested to sue....
But I can go out there again and video tape me getting kicked out and knowing what to ask for and what to say.......then sue.
Disorderly conduct
I'd refuse to leave, and have done so in the past when a cop gives an "unlawful order." He may end up arresting you for "disorderly conduct." Disorderly conduct means you were causing "public inconvenience." He won't have any witnesses to testify that you were inconveniencing them, and you win the case. It depends on if you want to go through the hassle of being taken to jail, but it might be good publicity.
I like the idea of asking
I like the idea of asking for the ordinance, but I don't think you're going to get anything but trouble by arguing Constitutional law with a cop. He will never respond well to that.
www.paulforronpaul.com
The Constitution is a very small document
You can even carry a copy of it in your pocket. In fact, the cop should too, since he took a solemn oath to uphold it, the result of violating which is perjury and treason. To dismiss "arguing Constitutional law with a cop" is a sad testament to the level of insanity we've reached in this country. He damn well better know the constitution as well as anybody. It is the one and only thing he is tasked with!