first amendment issue and that's where the government can prohibit the private citizens political speech on a public street next to a middle school because school officials considers the speakers message to be disruptive to the school in here in this case the government just pick a should be doing so was invoking section six to six point eight of the california penal code and we contend on the well established principles of the first amendment that the government does not have the power to invoke or to make those sort of content base speech is not a content neutral basis for prohibiting it so it's the it is the message in this case the pictures that are causing a reaction that in effect is a content based restriction on speech so by mistreating the the granite case that says that various forms of otherwise protected speech related activity or speech can be prohibited if they're disruptive to a school if we know that the real question then is ok how much is first regardless of the disruption if it's a content you can't make those sort of content based restrictions graining made very clear that the government has no power to restrict activity because of its message i stand as not is not my question my question is assuming that the statute is content neutral are you arguing that there is insufficient disruption that to the second part i think first of all if it's content neutral it can't be applied in a content based manner and your basis for saying this disruption is the content of the message even granted says that's not a anyone who was willing to approach arguing sort of gently against and on you the built that way or you could have a picture on a truck that drives past with a security vehicle following it let me ask you this and i understand it's not your case but let's assume that this truck was being driven past a kindergarten through three and in big letters it said this could have been you and we get undisputed evidence that the first and second graders are just now been able to learn to read are crying almost uncontrollably now that sounds like a disruption are you saying that because it's content based because the the other direction i did k through three you got middle schoolers i mean kids at different ages react very differently and then what may be perfectly appropriate and more the expression of an adult may or may not be to us to a small child but in fact if the truck was moving it probably provide less of a security issue because you're traveling the obeying the traffic laws there ensuring that it's that it's moving safely it's not it's not blocking it's not obstructing when you get into the question of ok the larger picture is more effective is disruption of activities that go on in a school so i'm not sure whether it's on the street and disrupting what's going on in the school or actually within the school building is the constitutionally determinant of wine well i think the term of wine is first and difficult question but again i don't think under these facts even have to go that far because for a number of reasons one is we were they were operating there for their speech activity prior to the start of the school day which granted said is permissible in the student fact the audience is entering and leaving and you  honors class spent some time talking about their activities sounds like a civic lesson if you look at the objective facts of the classes started on time the classes ended on time no class was canceled in the class schedule didn't change and if i didn't  limit their activity i mean if what they want to do is what they're actually going to not let me ask you this will be clear draft the injunction you want and you think you're entitled to just give me a little quick little sketch of that the government is prohibit on the first amendment pro from friends i mean that there are many things one can say about schools being different but but one of them one of them is the age of the kids and the other one is and i'm not a big fan of cap are under the law and i think that's where graner allows these continuity of time place and manner restrictions to take into account that particular factor of the disruption of the school but i don't see how great it gets you to be able to do content based restrictions on what kind of back to it again but if that's a factor seventy five minute detention certainly this was you know beyond the momentary stop that is authorized under the in the line of cases and terry they took their driver's license they ran license checks they ran warrants checks they weren't wanted for any for any criminal activity and obviously from our perspective all they were doing was engaging in peaceful non structured of political speech in a public form they had let him go yeah but they're trying to figure out you know only time you want to do so they call the supervisors they say you know i've never been in the sixty's and never had think that's where they were comes out even you know with the qualified immunity question it's kind of why they you know they impute them with the knowledge of what the case law in fact says and i think that's that would be my answer in terms of whether or not they're holding him just to figure out what it is that they that there's a car looks like a police officer let's go see who is in this thing they stop and they ask him if you yes and check the licenses see what they do and ask them what they do in the testimony is that they knew they were engaging in political speech at that vehicle in my client's a very very careful about this because they know that there a this this program they researched very closely what couldn't cannot be put on the vehicle and they ensure that it is that it has all the legal requirements and they've done that and it's obvious because even after they search this thing they realize that they did pass with a certain they've had t allegations that as a lawyer brought up in this case the goal of the and yet you know it's a security vehicle they used to hire as duty police officers actually right along with them who could perhaps use their authority but that became too costly form so they stopped doing it but they didn't reconfigure the reconfigured vehicles there's nothing on the awful about the vehicle the vehicle also helps the larger trucks moving traffic it provides when you when they will have to change lanes or on the highways you can change lanes first a lo tell them what they deserve not my oppressions and it's only an impression that they didn't actually even call that type of that now i don't believe that that's in the record but i will submit to your honor that was what was the c should leave and that they're going to invoke section and i believe this is what they did in this case they asked mr roberts to come out and tell the plaintiffs to leave because they were causing a disruption at school and again all of this took time  to apply non school first amendment law to the school setting and the place the cases are clear that the school can in fact have an obligation to prevent disruption at the school and i think the juggling case says that you don't even have to have a disruption as long as you reasonably anticipate that the destruction is going to occur in this case there are already was a disruption was it protests and every kid in hysteria probably not but do they have to wait to that point before the school starts to act i would submit to the court that the cases say no and i think i will leave the rest of that discussion to counsel for the school unless you all would rather have me at the time well you're the ones who are enforcing the laws seems to me you know more constrained the laws applying to this and seem to me to be the primary defendants because especially because the injunction is not limited to those that's requested will not be limited to the school and they could be i suppose but that's not what they're asking for sheriff's department has to rely in large part on what the schools say they have to rely on whether the schools state that there is a disruption i don't think that the case that puts on the deputies the onus to go inside the school and say i'm sorry are you disrupted or you disrupt it i think they have to re if there was a substantial disruption to the school i would say can this is all about the disruption at the school it could have been a movie star on a truck or riding around in around the school if it has caused that kind of disturbance i think of the school with the thin right to call for  got a call from the school the school and it's causing a disturbance the text that was sent to the deputies says there is a truck circling the school but they understood that to mean that there was a disturbance so somewhere in the translation between the dispatcher and the deputies it was translated to just there's a the actual actions i mean there is no dispute as to whether there was in fact he perceived there to be a disruption he presented testimony that in evidence that students were crying students were god various points as the truck makes the loop around the school the truck is visible from a classroom do we know what was true with respect to the position where it was stopped was the provisional from the classrooms where it was stopped during this period that i'm not i'm not sure a lot of the time there is a wall on hydro the by the playfields i mean it's a great big loop around the school grounds arrive small portion of that loop that's actually visible from the school windows from the classrooms that's correct we don't know says but there were hundreds of students being dropped off and there on the sidewalks there are potential dash in the period of time that i have been there we've had two kids killed and we had five kids hit by cars in very similar circumstances  i saw the videotape i confess i skipped through what i thought was boring but maybe i missed it and the videotape is actually focused on the back of the truck rather than scanning the sidewalks during the course of the videotape o rather the d v d that i saw i did not see hundreds of kids on the sidewalks is there evidence beyond the declaration that there were hundreds of kids on the sidewalks well in other than the declaration and the roberts you know and that's what they did the district court actually looked into that particular issue and found there not to be any the fact that that video was not on mr roberts has no effect on his testimony as to what he saw it you know that a lot of children have to walk down a colorado boulevard in pasadena and are going to be upset if there are people out there with signs saying yes then the district would have no means of controlling that particular home we  school you can't say anything that would upset them and again the amount of the disruption is probably would become an issue with that point if if it did not necessarily disrupt her interfere with the work of the school or impinge on the rights of the students i think cording to hazel ridge and hazlewood there wouldn't necessarily be any right of the school officials to to limit that that particular olympic torch passed by that particular situation dealt with a school principal who crossed the street didn't like what was being said specifically didn't like being  suspended the plaintiff there was general disarray at the torch passing but there was no evidence that the general disarray or the disruption had anything to do with what plaintiff they had the absence sign a whole lot of other cases the fact that people are upset by a message is not usually something that we deal with under the full first amendment we say that's your problem and i think the problem is i mean the case at hand we're dealing with a content neutral restriction somebody should have to pay because somebody else doesn't like what they're saying whatever they're saying but again i mean we're dealing with the importance of the education system in maintaining maintaining an education system that these children are required to attend to and again you have previously brought up the fact that they plaintiffs had a kind captive audience the fact that school is in fact required children are required to go to school really minister just i want to cover a couple of points regarding the record the message your honor that there was actually received by the deputies and it's cited on page nine of our opening brief exact and this is what what they receive in terms of information antiabortion truck with offensive just after now they just want to grab the school official come down here's the statute read it to them tell them to go to the heart of the much of an investigation of the facts going on in this particular case yes q yes i read camera shows a lot more in the perforated than what you claim it does because i can if you want to that's all you can see all the way from the sidewalk to the fence and clearly you can see one point you go by the main entrance you can see the students walking right into the building now you can see roberts has correctly that we got lots of kids whether hundreds and all twenty thirty and let's assume further that there is some legitimate reason to be concerned that the kids are going to spill out into the street and i assume you have no basis to contest his statement that during the time he's been at the school they have two kids killed and five kids hit by cars in similar circumstances what he make of that is to say let's assume in a sense partly favorably to your position that these kids are upset specifically because of the message they're upset by the manner in which it is delivered and we are in danger in the lives of these children given their reaction to it you still get to do this daughter get to school started before the officers got there and let us assume as mr roberts states there are numerous kids on the sidewalk whether they're hundreds or whether they're in the twenty's i don't know but let's assume that in mr robert's judgment has probably been there a long time that this is creating the sort of physical hazard to these kids that has in the past resulted in two deaths and five x times you still get to do what you're doing you know i don't know how you get around the constant basis then you thing to think that that's what's going to happen on the truck comes back next time to that at least to this school and at that time when you know things do happen over and over again so why are you part of why why are you all i think what you're telling me is not as of you know it's a tough case because i think what you're telling me is that if the reactions of the students and to the message and the manner in which is delivered in danger is the students lives you may nonetheless do it on on plan b t they went to one time then after that the executive director after looking what happened here looking at the statute said we can't do this anymore because i got volunteers i'm not going to place them in jeopardy of an arrest this is a criminal statute so they have in fact stopped you know they were in one time after that but since then which is what i think they're trying to do here which is why we think it runs afoul of granted itself you know i think the best about this but i think i asked a yes or no questions i'll ask it again and i think i want to yes or no is it your position that if it turns out to be true as mr roberts states that there were numerous students on the sidewalk and in his judgment he had created a traffic hazard similar to that which had led based on the content of the message they're responding to the message in the manner in which it is delivered if i say and the manner in which it is a live or they can restrict it based your answer is that is your position yes or no you know i think i can read the case law or any other you know you can say vehicles like they have only one preyed on those are content neutral basis for making the regulations but if it is just a response to the message you can't do that so it it kind of just looks between ok do we have a traffic issue and then there is no i don't have a violation of section six to six point eight answer yes question what was that answer due to the nature of the graphic pictures on the side of the panel truck question and what is it about the nature of the pictures answer they're just very graphic and kind of in your face of an unborn there was no disturbance other than they didn't like these pictures and they told him to go away and that's the deputy who followed him around for five minutes not talking about hundreds of kids in the streets and over the time the deputies get there the kids are in school i don't i think when they stop don't know i watched the time on the video image right i mean maybe that means they have to go back for trial fact on that question because the video is every time the truck passes and of course that means most of the time they're not and probably will as the truck passes the front of the school you have the privilege on the sidewalk but then there's a lot a lot of stuff that's not picked up by the video so in various way one common i know is going way over here with the reason why mr roberts is still in here if you look at the statute itself it's kind of drafted i think in a