fact because of that didn't overview the starting point here is the central hudson analysis right off the bat under central hudson for purely commercial speech to deserve constitutional protection it must concern a lawful activity and not be misleading or be truthful we believe that the city of st ford as effectively conceded in not there's any evidence that everything that we've public it's did just x report looks at about two thousand residential burglaries a year so they have that's twenty fifty so given that substantial interest to stop thousands of burglaries into homes we've got an appellate state court that said this is a fine ordinance we've got the louisiana supreme court the u s supreme court breyer in cutting him admittedly preet central has hudson and then we've got the people of shreveport for thirty years saying they want this so it's a fit we'd be a federal court stepping in and overturning a state supreme court arguably intentional the u s supreme court clearly contradicting a state appellate court and absolutely contradicting the will of the shreveport people that's a very big request you're making of us to do well your honor i believe the duty of the federal courts especially when you're dealing with a nonpolitical body is to protect the constitutional case could be mistaken but they are that yet the infield case notes that the job of determining whether you want to receive information is that of the speaker and the audience not the government so that is one reason that it's not the best central hudson case that strikes down one of these because there are a lot of cases out there based on the homeowners interest in receiving the solicitation what case can you point to the homeowner as opposed to let's not forget that vivian is actually selling home security and automation systems and that which prong do you win on best it doesn't directly materially advance privacy or safety or there isn't a perfect fit i know you're going to say both but which one do you think there's more authority out there supporting her i had well i think there's more authority on the reasonable fit judge judge higginbotham's case in while not of course admitted solicitation that where one must use the statements used at least restrictive me oh no we've been trying to be pigeonholed a less restrictive means then then banning the specific action altogether even field there's a lot of case law infill says blanket bans are unconstitutional i'm sorry or disfavors another case that effectively it was the ruling was upheld as the went for a case  improve it and even field even field sets the framework for all of these things that frankly when i started this case i thought there would be a case on all fours but there's just not a lot of door to door solicitation manner restrictions the one point i want to make is if you have these these cities in me just thousand parishes and counties around the country have have these restrictions on the ability of door to door  solicitors to to to to do their business time between on and five you have to wait id we reference both your parents just to show there are less restrictive means not to show that they had to do this now what do you do in the that because they in the sense that you can't make a decision like the decision for the citizens to own as for the individual as to what they want to receive it or not to turn it around the other way it is no burden that or that that ordinance i think the point would be is why have time place and manner restrictions for commercial speech ok if if a blanket ban is ok but look but this is focused primarily on city can make anyone selling homes a theory systems wear uniforms anyone go through a background check just like those repairs provide that back fingerprinting you know convicted felons no one who all of these are things that the city can do so that the case law that center has a says it must be narrowly tailored how can a blanket ban be narrowly tailored and that is the question that it if the dictate is that it must be there early tailored then then but they have done is not use a less restrictive means they've you used the most restrictive means to your position is any city anywhere in the country that has a twenty four hour ban that's one constitution as well i would be a big  circuit would your honor it would i but but but how could you have a less restrictive how could you meet a less restrictive test when it's a blanket ban it isn't perfect it's just reasonable is reasonable to think that fewer strangers will come to people's doors at night if you say that some subset of strangers aren't allowed to ring the doorbell why isn't that reasonable law your honor i would i'm not saying that that that's reasonable i'm not well i'm not saying that position is is unreasonable what i would say that is making criminal lawful activity in order to expose the light of day to the criminals is not reasonable and i believe that's i commercial contexts on the circuit level i don't believe you're always congress doing this for telemarketers or is congress doing what you're saying tailoring congress is telling it for the the t p c a forward do not call if they have a procedure to delay the one of the problems is that the metromedia case involving billboard says that each method of free speech is a law in and of itself or unto itself so you have value each one in that is the problem we get into here but you know it when you when you go through the line of it if the people of america said we don't want telemarketers calling in congress ok you're going to nerd out on this aren't you john i'm going to do my best and that's there's a lot of cases here that you can easily get bogged down in is there any circuit case pro central hudson that allows a blanket ban on door doors or there's not that and then when i looked at the cases you cited page twenty two and twenty three to suggest there might be those cases don't give that the words of the tenth circuit case you cited pacific frontier that up held a preliminary injunction correct and then the third circuit case you cite pennsylvania alliance that was tailored to night time only so it looks to me that central hudson is a huge turning point and we don't have a single blanket ban being upheld anywhere after that except in ohio circuit level court and then you know the louisiana cord and then there's a colorado state supreme court case a colorado state supreme court post central hudson not twenty four hour bans correct it's a it's a it was the town of moore collins i think ok that's that's interesting so you're saying if we will otherwise we've created a split with the state supreme court that's right that's is the name of that case ok i look at that because the court of appeals here brunello i mean wasn't very rigorous analysis view i'm sorry well let me phrase it as a question here is it true the district court only gave one paragraph of analysis to the directly materially advances the two interests you've identified you know and i know that he addressed  the evidence i think it was that much detail but it was one paragraph he cites huddleston twice both relating to crime there's no finding that i saw that he made or huddleston asserted relating to privacy the and that's that i think the court probably reference to just briefly ok so that puts us in a position given our authority pruitt and the supreme court went further discusses there saying cities at least have to give a rigorous analysis to how a blanket ban on commercial speech directly immaterial advances if you've got a look at it but here we've got it one deputy statement that helps community policing right away you've got a glaring problem that he starts twenty years after the ordinance has been passed with a high point of crime which doesn't it also suggests that this ordinance helps reduce crime well that if you look carefully at what he's addressing you know it's it's not a period of time when shreveport started using community oriented policing that was different than it had used before it was to dress some pretty intense criminal activity that's true that was happening in this community but no one is questioning the value of community policing the issue is this ordinance but he hardly explains how it connects to community police he explains that one of the major features of the community oriented policing program was getting these neighborhoods vigilant on these door to door robberies these break ins home invasion robberies and that the presence of this ordinance and he's observing after thousand of years of policing and weekly review of criminal statistics for twenty years that was twenty years as the deputy chief and the assistant chief of police a pretty unique vantage point i gree he's got the qualifications to say community policing is essential the trouble i don't see is any statement saying this ordinance which was an act in one thousand seventy one but you have a high point of break ins in one thousand nine hundred doesn't look  what's doing it and then if you really try to think through a logically gets even more difficult because you're for assuming a bad guy and you've got an ordinance that says well if you're selling more and more research you're selling services or you're selling all these other things you're fine to go to the door but not if you're selling these an effort there wasn't a who fifty sixty motion to hold the record open it go depose him get more there wasn't something skiver an effort to try to get more details we have a truthful affidavit of somebody with personal knowledge for twenty years of looking at weekly constant distance and i think that's adequate what's your best case for that being adequate when he talks about a bad crime problem there is no doubt shreveport has residential burglary problems all major cit regulation directly advances the governmental interest a certain that's what we're talking about now that's the second step correct and i think that the affidavit that's what that affidavit goes to is that what you're saying that that's included it does both it shows that the obviously advancing public safety issues are clearly appropriate interest we know that right and i would to i would say that the interest could even be described more narrowly here as well in that he's t observations of the deputy chief for twenty years on the fact that they've started getting communities to the village and vigilant about what's happening in that community who's moving around where and that there's not just regulation doesn't have this regulation accomplishes it does go towards that i mean there's not a lot of people who are part of that neighborhood going door to door because that desensitizes i think how he described it the citizens know what's happening in their communities when you have extraordinary criminal activity here that's not the same as the you know the idaho falls idaho that's a different case this is you have to look at the summary judgment record for this particular community  what was i think that for summary judgment purposes and that's really what this case ought to be decided on is summary judgment record it did judge judge hicks abuses discretion in accepting that evidence  i understand and we advanced our burden for purposes of summary judgment that that's an appropriately accepted affidavit he described it in their opinion it's based on that person's observations personally it would have been admissible at trial the question  particular set i mean we're looking at reasonable a reasonable fit it's there i can't think of other what you but this is a complete ban though that the difficulty is the ordinance comes early in the game long before the burglaries and things like that are pretty serious issues it's unique perhaps to that community it's something that this person observed over his twenty years when they started in facades in this orbits was important here's just maybe this is the record not how many people are arrested and prosecuted for the unlawful solicitation if people are here but this is a big problem and a threat to the security that we know that is at the record it's not in the record i can't imagine that there's i mean it's of known that they have this ordinance in place i know but but therefore this is the big crime fighting measure how many people get convicted prosecuted arrested for bringing the doorbell either is a fake or true salesman i think it's because the community knows that they're not out there selling firestein researchers are but so you would agree i mean i don't this is not a trite question would a girl scout trying to sell cookies be criminally exposed why not  st it's not they're not i mean that's a charitable organization there's an exception here for charitable organizations it's not specifically there but it's not going to be enforced but that's the problem it's not going to be enforced against certain people is technically under the ordinance could a girl scout be prosecuted for rain the doorbell saying would you like to buy my cookies yes or no under the ordinance has that ordinances written you could yes whereas a group of lawn service people coming in saying could we go around you yard and mow it all they aren't prosecutable correct you know they would be i thought services are exempted you know are you sure that council in that's is the people with milk eggs and other stuff that people brought sure i don't have ok you're sure if you're wrong and therefore people can come and ring the doorbell a crowd of people that are coming in saying we do your lawns and trees if they're exempted but the girl scouts are still goes to crime fighting it still would have an effect on that it's going to lessen the number of folks moving from door to door that's in the bottom line anything that lessens the number of folks that's part of it several fall that was one that was a little different the fact that the tranquility and just stopping blanket bans door bells ringing why wouldn't congress be able to say to telemarketers no calls ever on your theory would not survive a consentual hudson i think it would so congress can say telemarketers commercial speakers you can never call anyone in the united states because that will disturb their tranquility and that's a reasonable fit that's your theory to me that have to go back and look at it a little more but it seems like the logic of your argument it's it wouldn't be illogical to suggest that that would that would advance that interest right that's my there's there's obviously less intrusive ways to do that over the telemark imposters i mean obviously that's that's possible as well i think that the reasonable fit analysis is right for all that i don't think that that at this point a curfew i suppose could be good it could help i guess it's probably more likely in the day that these things that would be yes i think you'd be in a very different world if you had a nighttime ban but there's there's just not that that's what telemarketer went to  faded periods of time xander they balanced out the interest but there's no authority that suggests that we that that's required i mean the fact that that's what we upheld and prove it based on common sense which is between community or even policing and this type of activity that knowing who's coming and going in a way that limits to some extent  mean it doesn't advance the interests to the point that you could say it's a it's a reasonable fit we don't have to show that you've made a very strong case for community policing i just don't see how distant connecting policing to an ordinance that says no girl scouts find lawn service of i'm right on that if well you look at that i think we satisfy our burden when we provide that type of affidavit he's got his personal observations of it i'm not sure what other evidence that would mean anything he says personally observing how restricting door bell ringers salesman instead of just saying this will somehow make people more vigilant and it will desensitize whatever the word is that he said i don't even understand other decent to does asian works what did you have a listen say about the restriction on soliciting as opposed to the value of community policing what is it to quote me anything that he says about i think he also said that there confrontations between citizens and persons who are coming to the door and if they don't know i'm in a pretty lily's bad areas they're having such problems and we're trying to improve that it leads to escalations of problems and if you talk about that as one of his observations that would be a legitimate reason as well i'm not saying they're legit i just think there could be a lot more evidence the city could do for a blanket ban to say we're prosecuting a lot of people that pretend to be salesman we arrest them we get calls from people it's happening none of that's here but all the post central hudson cases have exhaustive complaints and hearings and they demonstrate the facts well in respect to circumstances where that's more possible i mean there are not cases that talk about these issues in any of the cases  relative to the law enforcement we have judge rink was talking about it in one of his dissents about how it's common sense all of this and we've been talking about it in supreme court cases for a long time about the relationship between criminal activity that was what you know that's a big part of all these so my point i think is that when you have an affidavit from someone who's qualified to talk about it his personal knowledge of what he's observed for twenty years and a unique setting in a unique community that's having particular problems and that they associate this vigilance in the community the lack of the all of things that maybe find it out ho or somewhere else that are that are potential problems here he's able to observe that it satisfies a summary judgment burden either there's a per ban on these things entirely that you can't have a twenty four hour ban for supper safety reasons or per or or you have a trial and let's go back and see exactly what he really meant that's the two options i said and asked to the latter i don't think that that i think that's ignoring the summary judgment record in this particular case i think how much of a record there but that we can you agree to disagree i mean the state fire marshal in the easy end is backing off the attorney general is backing off that makes a really important case for shreveport government authorities to say shreveport is unique and different our problem is outrageous and this ban on solicitors will help our crime problem i'd love to see facts with that level of grip and gran ar truth justifying a blanket ban well i don't believe that that's necessary on i appreciate it like this when there's nothing controversy what we have and it's a missile test yeah thank you and i right or wrong on services you're right your honor it doesn't specifically exempt services pacifically though it says that what is banned is this peddling for the purpose of soliciting orders for the sale of goods wares or market merchandise or disposing of goods wears or merchandise we have i think we said that embraced alone or the scots long chemical guys although arguably that could be a good arrests i mean there is not so certain people that look ok coming to the door cell just don't get arrested but certain other people do well i think physically here everyone would be arrested early outs anybody girl scouts  your honor i actually thought about putting out a brief but i decided against it because i think they have a higher level of scrutiny when it's a charitable organization but under the under that statute they are they are certainly addressed kids going door to door selling conjecture cherry picking in one nine hundred ninety in a twenty fourteen while those stats may be right it provides zero context your honor in addition there is no link between door to door solicitation i think you touched on it indirect because it's part of this community policing regime i guess i would i would say i think the do not call list is is with regard to telemarketers is the perfect parallel to that is the no solicitation sign certainly any other restriction for instance of the time restriction is is is is clear certainly pass constitutional scrutiny also note that the oregon supreme court struck down a very similar ban to this so what about the colorado i didn't a lot of case has a pretty vigorous dissent but otherwise it was a blanket ban and it applies consensual hudson and i wasn't aware that ruling for you would create a split with the state highest court it does apply in a it applies central hudson oddly enough it doesn't apply fox which makes the ruling even  more striking because fox said in this reasonable fit less restrictive if you recall central hudson began with a least restrictive means and it and how a lot of cases nine hundred eighty one and address media which is i think the main city of los angeles los angeles which stam basically kind of the begin this alternative means that was never under central hudson and alice never the reason why a band was up hailed a restriction flight issues in the one nine hundred seventy s and that was struck down and they they did one of the reasons they said was this all turned they stops this inquiry into the alternative means of communicating their ideas because or their their commercial speech because they how else are people going to sell their signs you know the captive buyers driving throughout the neighborhood and that does kind of bear upon us as well your honor we don't sell two hairs in the facial attack on the ornament it is but i do want to