represent all defendants of belize ok great all right well we've got this that for twenty minutes per side and of course we then have another case involving at least the this is a case about i mean it's a full policy to prohibit in advance political protest speech in a traditional public forum one of the issues you have to decide is whether or not there was such a policy i can only submit that the city itself called it a policy at a televised press conference they announced in these words we are going to adopt a policy to take the core area where the conference is occurring and prohibit any demonstration within that court area for the remainder of the week our position is that anyone who goes in that area to protest will be arrested the city maintains that there's nothing written in civil order number three that says no protesting no political protesting and they're totally correct it doesn't say that in the text of the order and it is totally irrelevant as the u s supreme court has on a number of occasions that in this apology doesn't have to be written and certainly announcing it the mayor and issued reports and the findings and the city of seattle concluded that in practice the so called limited curfew zone was treated by the police as creating a no protest pretty much all of the officers who were  told not to allow any protests in here captain fugit was the head of the demonstration platoon management platoons that i was told no protests in here you can find that all the way down to the the smaller the officers are on the beat like officer smith who on tape can be heard telling my client mr gove looks like on the face of the policy they would keep out all protests but also looks like they would keep out all i'm not sure that i understand your question your honor and i'm not sure that i would agree in a sense that it leaves keeps out all grotesquely and here's my question the emergency order didn't say we shall exclude all protests it said we're saluting limited and people involved with the p t o agreed but then the operations order distributed to the police by the chief of police said and you let in anybody with a reasonable purpose and a reasonable purpose they sa that they live there they work there are any like type of reasonable activity like oh they said shopping specifically so in the sense to get let in absolutely everyone in the world except the visible protesters with their does not mean that everyone was allowed even if what we saw officers knew that reasonable means everyone that protestors i think there's a really easy answer to question your honor and that is that as a matter of law the u s supreme court has ruled on many occasions that the standard like whoever the police whatever the police think is reasonable violates the first amendment precisely because it allows the police to decide what's reasonable and that is exactly what happened in this case in this case it was admitted it was admitted by  well actually what it said is a reasonable purpose includes work shopping at specific locations within the perimeter or other types of reasonable activity and the mayor himself acknowledged that he left it to the police to decide what that meant and the mayor himself said it it necessary for the city to adopt the emergency order number three legally why was that necessary that it i mean why is it necessary to have it on paper i don't know that was what was the significan the not much to call it an emergency because if you violated that where you could be the people could be arrested well that's because that's what they wanted to create a reason through arrest anyone in there that looks like a protest in this now let me ask you this when you maybe i can answer it this way if we at the very least raised a genuine material issue a fact that they may have had an unwritten policy then you must reverse and surely we did that i think that you can find as a matter of law that  such a policy and for such a policy you have nothing in the record from them to rebut any of the affidavits that we presented but we presented you all these affidavits that people walk up to the checkpoints on a later date and say they have the sticker on them  adopted and there's nothing in the record to say that was not what the officers did what they can say is well that's not what it said in the written text of order number three that is immaterial whether it's in the text or not  this when they were announcing this on t v they stated quite honestly what they were doing was stopping all political protest we didn't put those and maybe the lawyers very carefully crafted the language of order number three so it wouldn't say that have i think we have thirteen but there's nothing on the other side to say anything else well the question is whether or not the officers acted reasonably i don't agree your honor that's not the question w some redundant from being entered against us your honor but as a matter of law if you give a police officer of the ability under standard like whatever's reasonable to you the discretion of the site you can come in and you can't you can speak t then you're in it doesn't matter what the facts are it doesn't matter whether the officer was reasonable it doesn't matter whether the officer made very reasonable decisions about what it knew not to let in that you and i would all agree with the fact that he had the discretion to decide is itself illegal under all those cases and all your cases you have said that simply giving a police officer that type of discretion means it is the absolute and fact of the matter is they had totally unconfined discretion but if i want to answer the question you asked me a while ago to talk about why this policy is totally irrational and how it it doesn't make any sense to say that it protects anybody to do this if you have a person who comes with peaceful intent to the edge of the boundaries on under some or one with some stickers on and they're told to come in here with the hypothetical person situation to increase safety the next person hypothetically comes to the boundary is one of these black block anarchists from eugene who broke windows of starbucks the day before he comes up not wearing any buttons or stickers or he quickly takes them off since he's going shopping at the gap and gets going it's not the stickers that are going to break wind it's the people maybe some tiny little fraction of people less than one percent by the city's only admission so imagine all around the zone these little piles of buttons stickers and signs piling up but the people coming in and if they put the button back on they get arrested how would we need out address how to deal with a case where there was widespread continuing violence violence that appears to be beyond the ability of the police to control and then there's another question reserved we didn't decide if the city of seattle determines there's a clear and present danger of harm to delegates to the deputy you know or the president of the united states who's visiting  versus c i r which is a u s supreme court case from one nine hundred thirty nine where the court said it will always be easier to prevent riots and civil anarchy by banning assembly or protest of doing it is to get enough police in there so that you don't have to ban first amendment activity which is what they did on wednesday thursday and friday because by then they had enough police in the and that's what they did here then the second thing was whether if you have intelligence of it's of a danger of a clear and present danger whether you could ban sort of a particular demonstration well here they didn't ban all demonstrations they they fanned all demonstrations perhaps in the so called no protest film but there could have been demonstrations the seattle center it could have been demonstrations on the streets outside of the zone in other words they didn't ban all demonstration they may have they may have precluded protesters from approaching the delegates but why is this different than the questions was or i don't think this question was reserved and specifically just because there was violence on day one does not mean you can ban protest activity later on in the week the violence the violence in columns on day one compared to the violence and the number of people involved compared to the violence in seattle on day one and the number of people involved are you know totally different orders of magnitude the police have things under control it's in the morning and the president's arriving them after the sun rise well i don't know what you mean by when you say the protesters were there but you rejected the idea that since it's reasonable to expect violence tomorrow we can ban present demonstrations tomorrow that was the argument you still made that was the argument you rejected  that is one there are two problems that that would have solved first of all it was solve the problem that it's doesn't make any sense to let people in if they just say i'm going to shopping and that's like the watchtower bible case and that's it's a and the supreme court said no it doesn't it keeps the bible distributors out but the criminals are going to come in anyway just like this case take off your button they come in anyway regardless of whether their intentions are violent or not violent but if they were to be on everyone if that's what it said nobody can come in here it would be a lot more like the cases like chalk it would not have this problem of police discretion of who comes in and who doesn't it wouldn't have any possibility to be content discriminatory and if it was it would be a lot more like fully communicate to the world to the federal government to the state government to the city to the general public by media but they can't get into the face of like a dialogue with know delegates is that an ample channel for alternative speech or is there a president that says that they have to be permitted to confront the delegates and their message to the delegate focusing on that and putting all the and difficult issues aside what's your view on that my view was first of all that there are several audiences and it would be it would not be accurate to say that there was one audience or that one was a primary  necessarily if i had to pick a primary audience i would say it's the fellow citizens of seattle that are inside the downtown core some people most of the people who are interested in talking to their fellow citizens in seattle some people are interested in talking to the del absolutely not and i think since about the one nine hundred twenty something or thirty something it's been black letter law that because a person could demonstrate somewhere else it's not a constitutionally valid reason to say they can't demonstrate here i think that's right or versus  restraint even if they're content based are sometimes ok and you can't just look at the circumstances and ignore the law fiercely that's never going to fly so what the court has to do with what judge rothstein did they said ok what are the circumstances that led to the destruction and are they within that context content neutral reasonable narrowly tailored do they leave open ample alternative channels  matter of law here just that there is no the night before they probably get in the emergency order oh no you're out of the night before was nov thirtieth at six o'clock on nov thirtieth there were approximately fifty thousand people in the streets of seattle the police were basically helpless to try to clear the streets they were using every every every means at their disposal to try to do it and were failing miserably i think entire downtown core of seattle was shut down to be taken so it's six o'clock and when and when they talk about that on the thirtieth or on the first they're talking about in the morning of december first thankfully i don't know where the six o'clock number comes from joiners communique that they're referencing says that by the early morning hours of december first the wee hours downtown was quiet al there's never been a history of time in the history of the united states when every officer in police departments apply the same standards which is why we have individual liability that's the difference between you know civil liability and individual liability i have no doubt that there was not standard that an officer on the honor and perhaps i can answer it by addressing it the way that the courts have addressed whether or not something isn't it sufficiently defined by sufficiently nonfat and sufficiently limiting in discretion for police officers is a pretty simple task of what a person of ordinary intelligence understand what they were doing violates the law we have the affidavits from the plaintiffs in this case presumably people of ordinary intelligence who say i understood what it meant if you didn't live there work there were have legitimate business there you couldn't a police officer said to now if there is discretion to be exercised under those circumstances that is stressing the discretion comes with the term other legitimate business or reason to be there but those are the kinds of questions that we want police officers to exercise discretion on is the supreme court is that if a plea if a police officer is out there waiting for everything to be fully defined before he or she asks we're going to have a sorry system i paraphrase but to include a reasonable purpose your honor she ferguson didn't revise emergency order number three all he did was interpret it be ordered just pacifically that people allowed in are employees and owners of businesses within the limited to you're not your own i don't know how they would handle that window shopping often leads to shopping i don't know but but what people other than protestors would be excluded let's you know i think i understand what your concern is on this judge baez and allow me to address it this way the city of seattle has never ever felt that they didn't want the beauty of speech inside and t w two s speech inside the zone in fact there was a e just weeks after this which speakers for the city including myself said listen if somebody is pulling stickers off people who are legitimately supposed to be getting into the zone that's a problem and i'm not going to sit here and say it isn't a problem but when you're analyzing these kinds of restrictions you're one of the court's duty is to look at what the evil is that the city is trying to restrict the evil the city was trying to restrict was not speech the evil was getting people out of the streets so eight crews could get to people who were having heart attacks so the people could get to their jobs so that employers could continue to make their livelihood so the folks who live there could make it home so that the p t o delegates could make it to the venues without was pretty clear i mean they certainly have raised the question of fact with respect to who would be allowed into the zone i mean if one of the purposes of this whole policy was to prevent protest again allow me to just take a step back and let's look at the arguments they're raising in the guise of what the supreme court's already said about this thursday saying because you're keeping protesters out but allowing everyone else down that it's not correct you can't do that government has sufficient interest and it's narrowly tailored there's a reason that stalin looks like it's texas congressional district it's a gerrymandered thing the city was interested in getting protesters right next to his many then used as possible while maintaining an area that they could actually stop this kind of illegal behavior the point was to get people out of the streets so the police officers could respond to the law breakers so if your black front whatever the fellows met the people from eugene names are does take its sticker off and says i'm going to go into starbucks and so the police let him through and then he pulls out a molotov cocktail and throws it at the front of my key town the police can get to him they can not your honor and that is exactly the point of this whole thing as laid out specifically an emergency order number three and as the city has maintained throughout there are about fifteen not just significant government interests at stake here the compelling government interest the safety of the citizenry not just people who live and work in the area but also the protesters the the ability of people to get to work has been described by the supreme court as a compelling government interest if you can't get to work you ok to restrict activities as to a particular group if it's only one group that's causing the problem but statute that is more inclusive and less content or viewpoint  and they present evidence to that effect well there apparently were some officers who did take signs and stickers away from people but that that is not evidence of the city policy but as applying and as applied they could have gone after those individual officers the question is whether or not anybody was allowed to go in there and protest on any issue there is no suggestion that police officers allowed people who were pro environment to wear stickers and take signs and there is no evidence that they had the people who are in favor of the  analyze what the nice circuit is of about that your honor because i think if we look through it from an objective point of view you'll agree with me that that's not right they are really a piece maybe it's a case that leaps immediately to mind there was no indication in the area of peace navy that there was going to be any violence whatsoever no indication that dignitaries would not be able to get to the viewing platforms no indication that it was going to interfere with the parade of ships in the bay and nothing which would suggest that a few people in some pleasure boats going by the front of the rest of the reviewing area were going to cause any trouble whatsoever and the court in that circumstance said a twenty five yard of protected zone was ok but seventy five yards was too much under those circumstances they have nothing to worry about compared to what the city of seattle had and what we grew up with the city grew up in this zone you know protest or whatever you want to call it was a purposeful thoughtful effort to get people closer than twenty five yards to the people who were involved in the w ongoing discussions by putting them right next to their hotels right next to the news so it's ok in the area peacenik when they've got no problems that they can point to to say this is going to raise a problem how could it not be ok we're w officers they had people working eighteen one thousand hour shifts just to try to keep things close to order there was no option under those circumstances having people right next to where the delegates are staying and working so that you can contact them by just raising your voice isn't sufficient ample how can you how can we reconcile the area then with us some issues as they crystallize so you may or may not have that opportunity but in rebuttal do you want to say anything now for the we think it obvious that such a band cannot be justified even if it's an unpublished form because no conceivable government interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech and i bring that up because it's i've heard some arguments that collins doesn't apply because that was the whole city and this was just the downtown core of a city well jews for jesus was just an airport not the whole city of los angeles so the district court judge never addressed our overbred argument at all and there are two different types of over breath one involves third party standing and one doesn't one that doesn't is this is overbroad as applied to me because it's precious more of my speech than is necessary and that has never been addressed wasn't addressed below also want to say that then mr buck was mistaken when he told you that there were fifty thousand people in seattle on monday evening still causing problems and i want you to hopefully take a look at his own supplemental excerpts of records on page forty two there is an after action the downtown that is their walk i don't remember where they were from yesterday when or from when already just there but they said they started that sweep at six they ended it at seven thirty and in the record says we completed this about seven thirty one thousand thirty hours with no problems as the writers had left the downtown area and the last thing i wish to say is that mr black said that it was not our intent to suppress speech and i just want to say that that is black letter law that it is irrelevant what their intent was to get your argument  we'll take a break for fifteen minutes to make sure we're fresh to address the separate issue