G en. 75] 75

In our re view of loc al ordinanc es we concentrated on policie s that 1 raise problems under Forsyth, as distinct from othe r ty pes of issues under previously

established constitutional re quirements. B eca use of this, and be c a us e wehaveno t e x ami ned e ve ry po ssiblepo lic y , o ur

failureto mention a s pecif

ic l aw, ordinance , or re gulation should not be interprete d to mean that wehave de termined that it is constitutional. For example, the El kto n Pa

radeOrdin anc e , § 99 -4 of theEl kto n Co de , d oe s n ot ra ise F o r s y th pro blem s b ut h a s b e e n f ound to g iveov e rly

broa d disc re tio n to local off icials. Invisible Empire, Knight s of the Ku Klux Klan v. Town of Elkton, Civ il N o. L -9 2- 72 4 ( D. Md . Sept. 3, 19 92 ). In a dditi on , s ome local subdivisions have unwritten policies. See I nvisible Empire KKK v. Mayor of Thurmont , 700 F. Supp. 281 (D. Md. 1988). Unwritten policies are , almost by

definition, unconstitutional. ACO RN v . Ci ty

of T uls a , 835 F.2d 735 ( 10th Cir. 1987).

CONS TI TU TI ONAL LA W F REE DOM OF S PE E CH

— E FFE CT OF F ORSY TH C O U

NTY V . N A TI ON A LI ST M OV E ME NT , 112 S .C T . 2395 (19 9 2 ), O N S TATE A ND L OCAL R E GUL AT I ON O F P ARADES , D E MONS T RA T I ONS , A ND P UB L I C M E E T I NGS

J anuary11, 1993 T he Hon orab l e Sa m uel I

. R osenb erg H ous e of D el egat es Y ou have a s ked forouropi n ion c oncerni ng t he ef fec tof Fors yth C ount

y v. N at i onal is tMovem ent , 112 S. C t

. 2395 ( 1992) , on exi s t i ng s t atut es , or di nance s , and r egul at i ons of t he St at e and l ocal s ubdi vi s i ons . W e have exami ned a numberof St at e and l ocal pol i ci es conce r ni ng p ara des , demonst r at i ons , and publ i c meet i ngs and have i dent i fi ed s om e thatr ai s e cons t i tut i onal i s s ues of t he type r ai s ed i n Fo rs

y th

. I n gener al , w e ca n ident i fya number of con st i tuti on al defe ct s i n the presentform ulat io n o f t hese po l i ci es. 1 I P rior S u p re m e C o u rt P re ce d en ts It h a s lon g b e e n e sta b lish e d th a t a g o v e rn m e n t m a y v a li d ly im p o s e a p e rm it re q u ir e m e n t f o r p a ra d e s a n d d e m o n s tr a tio n s . C ox76 [7 8 O p . A tt ’y

The leg islative h i s t o ry

of the ordina

nce refle cted the vie w of the 2 bo ard of c omm iss ioner s that “ thec os t of ne c e ssa ry and re a so na ble prote c tio n of pe rs on s pa rtic ipatin g in or ob se rv ing said par a de s, assemblies, demonstrations, road closing s, and other re lated ac tiviti es e xce e ds theus ual and

no rm al cost

of law enf orc e me nt f

or wh ic h th os e participating should be he ld acc ountable and responsible.” v. Stat e of N

ew H am pshir e , 3 1 2 U

. S

. 5 6 9 (19 4 1 ). H o w e v er, s t andar ds m us t be pr ovi ded for t he gr ant or deni al of a perm i ts o t hat t h e d e c i s i o n i s n o t l e f t i n t h e u n f

e t t e r e d d i s c r e t i on of t he ad m inistrator. I n C ox v. N

ew H am pshir e , t he Supr eme C o u r tappr oved an ordi nan ce providi ng t hat a perm i tw as t o b e grant ed u nles s co n v en ienc e o f u se o f p u b li c str ee ts w o u ld b e u n d u lyd istu rbe d

. In ot hercas es , t he Supr em e C o u rthas r ej ect ed l aw s t hats etno s ta n d a rd s a t a ll. C i t

y of Lakew ood v. P l ai n D eal erP ub. C o. , 486 U .S . 7 5 0 (1 9 8 8 ); C ox v. St at e of Louis i ana , 3 7 9 U .S

. 5 3 6 (19 6 5 ). T he C our t has al s o r ej ect ed l aw s w i t h s t andar ds s o l oos e orvague a s to le a v e ro o m f

o r c o n te n t- b a s e d d is c ri m in a tio n . H a g u e v . C om m i t t ee for I ndus tr i alO r

ganiz at i on , 3 0 7 U. S. 4 9 6 ( 1 9 3 9 ) ( p e r mi tt o be den ied if, i n t he vi ew of t he admi ni s t r at or , deni al w oul d pr event
“ rio ts, d istu rb a n c e s, o r d iso rd e rlya ss e m b ly ” ); Sh u ttl e sw o rth v . C ity of B i r m i ngham , 394 U

. S. 935 ( 1969) ( deni al al l ow ed forr eas ons of

“ p u b lic w e lf

a re , p e a c e , sa f

e ty , h e a lth , d e c e n c y , g o o d o rd e r, m o ra ls orconven ience”)

. I n addi t i on, pr om ptr evi ew of deni al s m us tbe a v a ila b le

. Lakew ood v. P l ai n D eal erP ub. C o. ; N ati on al So c ia list P a rty o f A m e ric a v . Sk o k ie , 4 3 2 U .S . 4 3 (1 9 7 7 ); So utheast ern P r om ot i on, Lt d. v. C onr ad , 420 U

. S. 546 ( 1975)

. Fi nal l y , i n C ox v. Stat e of N

ew H am pshir e , t he C our tuphel d a perm i tfee t hatr anged b e tw e e n n o m in a l a n d $ 3 0 0 , b a s e d u p o n th e s iz e o f th e p a ra d e .
II Fo rs y th I n t he Fo rs

y th c a se , th e S u p re m e C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e v a lid ity of a pa r ade or di nance t hatpr ovi ded fora perm i tfee of up t o $1, 000 as se t “fro m ti m e to t im e” b y a co u n tyb o ard o f c o m m issi o n ers. In 2 p r a c t i c e , t h e f

e e w a s s e to n a c a s e - b y- c a s e b a s i s a n d v a r i e d w i d e l y. N o evi dence w as pr oduced t o s how t hatt he di ffe r ence i n co s tw asG en. 75] 77

r el at ed t o t he expe ns e of pr oces s i ng t he appl i cat i on. I n addi t i on, t he deci s i on w hethert o char ge forpol i ce pr ot ect i on, and how m uch, w as left t o the d iscreti o n o f a n ad m inistrator. T he C our t found t hat t hi s s t andar dl es s author i t y t o s etfee s w as in v a lid : T he dec i s i on how m uch t o cha rge f orpol i ce pr ot ect i on oradmi ni s t r at i ve t i m e )oreven w h e th e r to c h a rg e a t all

)is le f t to th e w h im of t he adm i ni s t r at or . T her e ar e no art i cul at ed s t andar ds ei t heri n t h e o rdi nance ori n t he count y ’ s es t a b l i s hed pr act i ce. T he admi ni s t r at ori s notr equi r ed t o r el yon any obj ect i ve fa ct or s . H e need notpr ovi de any expl anat i on for hi s deci s i on, and t hatdeci s i on is unrevi ew able. N othi ng i n the l aw o r its a p p l i c a t i o n p r e v e n t s t he off i ci al fr om encour agi ng s om e v ie w s and di s cour agi ng ot her s t hr ough t he arbi t r ary appl i cat i o n of fee s . T h e F i r s tA m endment pr ohi bi t s t he ves t i ng of su ch unbr i dl ed di s cr et i on i n t he g o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia l. 112 S. C t

. at2403. T h e C o u rt w e n t o n to f

in d th a t th e o rd in a n c e w a s a lso in v a lid becau se t he as s es s m entof t he fe e i nvol ved cont ent

- bas ed c on s i de r a t i on s ) s peci fi cal l y , gaugi ng publ i c r es pons e t o t he pr opos ed s peec h an d the num berof pol i ce ne ces s aryt o m eett hat r e s p o n s e . Un d e rt h i s s y s t e m, “ [ t ] h o s e wi s h i n g t o e x p r e s s v i e ws u n p o p u lar w ith b o tt le-th row ers, fo r ex am p le, m ayh av e to p aym o re fort hei rper m i t

. ” Id

. T he C our t concl uded t hat“[s ] peec h cannotbe fi nanci al l ybur dened, anym or e than i tcan be puni s hed orbanned, sim pl ybeca us e i tm i ghtoffe nd a hos t i l e mob. ” 112 S. C t

. at2404. Fi nal l y , t he C our tfound t h at the $1, 000 cap di d nots ave the or di nance , beca us e “[ a] t ax base d on t he cont ent of spee ch does not become m or e cons t i tut i onal beca us e i t i s a sm al l t ax. ” 112 S. C t

. at 2 4 0 5

.78 [7 8 O p . A tt ’y III St at e Pol i ci es A. The Uni v e rs it

y of Mar y land I n y our opi ni on r eques t , y ou s peci fi cal l y ask ed about as s es s m entof fees t o s tudent gr oups at t he C ol l ege Park campus of t h e Uni v e r s i t yo f

M a r y l a n d f

o rc o s t s a s s o c i a t e d wi t h s p o n s or i ng co n tr o v ersial spe ak ers. T h is prac ti ce b ec am e a n issue a f ew y ea rs ago w hen L oui s Far r akhan w as i nvi t ed t o s peak by t he B l ack Student U ni on. I n t hatcas e t he contr over s y ar os e w hen campus pol i ce s ought to req u ir e the B lack S tud en t U n ion to p aythe c o sts fo r t h e e x tr a s ecur i t yper cei ved t o be nee ded fort he eve nt

. A r es ol ut i on w as appar ent l yr eac hed i n w hi ch the U ni on pai d s om e of t he cos t s outof m oni es l eftoverfr om t i cket r ece i pt s aft erot herexpens es w er e pai d. Subse quent l y , t h e issue w as r efe r r ed t o t he Pr es i dent ’ s Sel ect C om m i t t ee on Fr eedom of E xpr es s i on. I n a r epor tdat ed N ovember 1 3 , 1 9 8 9 , the C o m m itt e e re c o m m e n d e d , in p a rt:

( 1) T he ca m pus pol i ce s houl d devel op cr i t er i a t o be us ed i n det er m i ni ng t he l evel of securi t yfor al l even t s hel d o n cam pu s. ( 2) T he ca m pus pol i ce s houl d devel op expe c t e d l e v e l s o f

s e c u r i t yf

o rv a r i o us lo c a tio n s a n d typ e s o f

e v e n ts. T h e se le v e ls w ou l d be app l i ed t o al l rout i ne cam pu s events

. For extr aor di naryevent s t he ca m pus pol i ce s houl d es t abl i s h a pr oces s fort he deve l opm ent of s ecur i t yneed s. T he pr oces s s houl d al l ow forappr opr i at e s tudenti nvo l vement and foran app eal process.

. . . ( 5) T he athl et i c depa r t m ent , St udent E nt er t ai nm entE nt erpr i s es ( SE E ) , Sum m er School , for

- pr ofi t student s pons or ed ent er t ai nm entevent s , and out s i de gr oups us i ng campus fac i l i t i es s houl d cont i nue t o pay f o rs e c u r i t y.G en. 75] 79 ( 6 ) T he budgetfort he ca m pus pol i ce s houl d be enha nced byt he SG A [Student G overnm entA s s oci at i on] and bys peci al c a m p u s a llo c a tio n s to c o v e r a ll s e c u rityc o sts e x c e p t th o se sp e c if

ied in 5 a b o v e . T h is enhanc emen ts houl d be bas ed on the ave r age o f th e c o sts o f

th e p re c e d in g th re e y e a rs. W ith t hi s enhanc ement t he ca m pus pol i ce w oul d be e x p e c te d to p r o v id e s e c u r it y f o ra ll a p p r o p ria te event s w i t houtchar ge. In re sp o n se to su g g e stio n s 1 a n d 2 , the C o m m itt e e to A ss e ss S e c u rity N e e d s o f

S tu d e n t E v e n ts iss u e d g u id e lin e s c o n c e rn in g se c u rity r equi r ement s . T h e r epor tof t hi s comm i t t ee, i s s ued M ay17, 1991, s ets m i ni m um s ecur i t yr equi r ement s fora var i etyof ca m pus l ocat i ons and l i s t ed addi t i onal fac t or s t hat coul d al t ert hat r equi r ement

. T he addi t i onal fac t or s ar e: adverti sing ; w hethert he e v e n t is op e n to th e g e n e ra l ca m p u s p o p u latio n a n d th e p u b lic o r is l i mi t e d t o me mb e r s o f

t h e s p o n s o r i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n ; e x p e c t e d c r o wd s i ze; amount of s t aff

i ng pr ovi ded byt he s pons or i ng or ganiza ti o n; his t oryof the spon sori ng organizat i on and o f a n y si m i l ar events ; w hetherm oneyw i ll be col l ect ed; t he type of c r ow d expec t ed; i ncr eas ed r isks ari s i ng fr om t hr eat s , pl anned de m ons t r at i ons , and s i m i l arfac t or s ; and t he nee d t o conducts ear ches. I ti s our u n d e rsta n d in g th a t th e se f a c to rs a re in f

a c t u se d b yc a m p u s p o lice in determ i ning securi t yrequi rem ents

. D ue t o budgetconst r ai nt s , s ugges t i on 6 has notbeen i m pl ement ed. I ns t ead, a s peci al fund has been cre at ed for “extr aor di narys ecur i t ycos t s r e l a t e d t o e v e n t s f e a tu r i n g contr over s i al s p ea k ers.” T h is fu n d co n sist s o f m o n eyfro m the C o ll eg e P ark ad m inistrati o n an d S G A a n d is av ail ab le t o co v er e x tr ao rdin ary s ecur i t ycos t s of SG A

- r ecogni zed s tudent gr oups orot herr egi s t er ed s tudentgr oups t hatco- s pons or event s w i t h SG A

- r ecogni zed gr oups ort hr ough SE E

. B as i c sec ur i t y cos t s m us t be cover ed by t he gr oup. G ro u p s a re e n c o u ra g e d to se ll t ick e ts o r in c re a se tick e t p ric e s to c o v e r th e c o sts a n d in c o m e f ro m tick e t sa les “ m u st as a f irst p rio rity be us ed t o r epay t he amount s pentfr om the fund. ” A gr oup m aynot depl et e t he fund bym or e than $1,00 0 an nual l y . Fi nal l y , t he fund agr eementpr ovi des t hat“[t ] he Pr es i dentof SG A and the V i ce P reside n t fo r S tud en t A ff airs w il l jointl yad m inist er the fu n d

. W h ere80 [7 8 O p . A tt ’y

a g re e m e n t is n o t re a c h e d , the e v e n t in q u e stio n w ill n o t b e e lig ib le to re c e iv e f

u n d s f ro m th is a c c o u n t.” A s w e u n d e rsta n d it, b a sic e x p e n se s a re th o se d e ter m in e d w ith r efe r ence t o s uch neutr al fac t or s as venue, expec t ed cr ow d s i ze, and e v e n t typ e , w h ile ex tra o rd in a rye x p e n se s a re th o se b a se d o n c o n ten tr e l a t e d f a c t o r s , s u c h a s p u b l i c r e a c t i o n a n d g r o u p a n d e v e n th i s t o r y. B ec au se b asic e x p e n s e s a re b ase d o n n eu tr al fa ctors a n d are cal cul at ed bas ed on s etgui del i nes , i ti s ourvi ew t hatt heym ay appr opr i at el ybe c h ar ged t o s pons or i ng or gani zat i ons w i t hout cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. E xt r aor di naryexpens es , how ever , pr es ent a di ffe r ents i tuat i on. Si nce e xtr aor di naryexpens es ar e bas ed on fa ct or s s uch as p u b li c re sp o n se, t h eyca n n o t, u n d er Fo rs y th , be cha rge d to the s pons or i ng gr oups . W i t h r es pect t o s tudentgr oups , an att empt has b ee n m ad e to av o id this p rob lem b ycre ati o n o f th e f u n d

. H o w ev er, as t he fund i s curr ent l ys etup, a gr oup t hat w is hed t o have a s er i es o f c o n tr o v e rsi al sp ea k ers w o u ld h av e to p ayit s o w n ex tr ao rdin ary cos t s orpas s t he char ges on t o t hos e w ho w i s h t o hearcontr over s i al sp ea k ers in o rde r t o av o id the $ 1 , 0 0 0 d ep let ion li m it

. T h u s, sp o n so rs orpar t i ci pant s coul d h av e t o payextr a bas ed on the per cept i on of c a m p u s p o lice th a t c e r ta in sp e e c h w a s lik e lyto e n g e n d e r h o stile r eac t i ons . T hati s exac t l yt he pr obl em found i nval i d i n Fo rs yt h. T h e re f o re , it is ou r vie w th a t th e f u n d a g re e m e n t d o e s n o t sa v e th is a s p e c t o f th e c a m p u s f

u n d in g p o lic yf

ro m u n c o n s titu tio n a lity. I n addi t i on, no l i m i t at ion i s pl ace d on a dec i s i on byt he P re sid e n t o f

S G A o r th e V ice P re sid e n t f o r S tu d e n t A f

f a irs to det er m i ne nott o payfunds fora s peci fi c eve nt

. T hus , thi s por t i on of t he agr eem en t al s o pr es ent s a dange rof cont ent

- bas ed di s cr i m i nat i on. T o t he ext entt hat th e U ni ver s i t ym akes venues avai l abl e for u se b yth e g e n e ra l p u b lic, it h a s c re a ted a p u b lic f o ru m in w h ich it cann ot dis cri m i nate on t he b asi s of co ntentw i t ho ut the m ost c o m p e llin g o f

re a s o n s . P er r

y E ducat i on A s s oci at i on v. P er r y Local E ducat ors ’A s s oci at i on , 460 U

. S

. 3 7 , 45- 6 ( 1983)

. Fundi ng t he p o lic e is n o t s u c h a c o m p e llin g re a s o n . Fo rs y th , 112 S. C t

. at2404. T h ere fo re, ch arg ing ex tr ao rdin arysec u ri tyco sts t o o u tsi d e sp o n so rs a lso ra ise s s e rio u s c o n s titu tio n a l p ro b lem s u n d e r th e ru lin g in Fo rs y th

.G en. 75] 81

It is our understandingthat the Depa rtment is currently

workingon 3 re vis e d re gulatio ns . Be causethe re gu l at i ons have “ signific ant direc t effe cts on the 4 pu bli c ,”they

areno t w ith in t

he“ int e rn a l ma

nag e me nt”e xcepti on

to rulemakingrequire ment s . 75 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 37 (1990); 72 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 230 (1987). We under stand that the Depa rtme nt i s c on sid e ri nga do pti ngthere gulatio ns . B . D epar t

m ent of N atural R es ourc es T h e Dep a r t me n to f

Natu r a l Re s o u r c e s h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n o ver for es t s an d p a r k s i n t h e St a t e . Th e r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e Dep a r t me nt p ro v id e th a t “ [ i]n a ll S tate f o re sts , e x c e p t u n d e r p e rm it o b tain e d in advanc e fr om a for es toffi cer , publ i c meet i ngs , ex h i bi t i ons , and demonst r at i ons of anyki nd ar e pr ohi bi t ed. ” C O M A R 08. 07. 01. 11. T hi s r egul at i on pr o v i des no s t andar ds fort he i s s uance ordeni al of a perm i t

. W it h o u ts uch s t andar ds , t he r egul at i on i s of doubt ful v a lid ity. A C O R N v . C ity o f T u lsa , O k la

. , 8 3 5 F

. 2 d 7 3 5 (10 th C ir

. 1987)

. A tt he veryl eas t , t h e reg ul at i on s houl d be admi ni s t er ed by pr om pt l ygr ant i ng al l r eques t s w i t houtchar ge unt i l a cons t i tut i onal r egul at i on can be pr om ul gat ed. 3 C . D epar t

m ent of G ener al Ser vi ces T he D epart m ent of G ener al Ser vi ces has gener al contr ol of St at e off

i ce b u il d ings a nd t he pr oper t yar ound t hem. T he D ep a r t me n th a s n o tf o r ma l l ya d o p t e d r e g u l a t i o n s c o n c e r n i ng demonst r at i ons orot her Fi r s t A m endment act i vi t yon pr oper t yunder i t s contr ol

. T h e D epart m entdoes have c er t ai n “rul es and r egul at i ons ” thati t p o sts in bui l di ngs underi t s contr ol

. W i t hout ado pti on un der t he A dm i nis t rat iv e P rocedu re A ct , ho w ever, t hese r e g u l a t i o n s d o n o th a v e t h e f o r c e o f l a w. 4 T he r egul at i ons bardisorder l yconducton St at e pr oper t yas w el l as conductt hatobs t ruct s entr ance s and pas s agew ay s . T he r egul at i on fur t herr equi r es pr i orappr oval fort he di str i but i on of pamphl et s and handbi l l s . I n addi t i on, t he D ep art m enthas an i n f o r ma l p e r mi ts y s t e m f o rd e mo n s tr a t i o n s . Un d e rt h i s s y s t e m, p er m i t s ar e i s s ued w i t houtchar ge t o any one w ho r eques t s t hem unl es s t he demonstr at i on w oul d confl i ctw i t h a pr evi ous l ys chedul ed e v e n t.82 [7 8 O p . A tt ’y

TheB a lti more County

and Che stert own o rdina

nc e s r e fer t o 5 pa rade s; theGre e nb e lt o rdina nc e re fers to m e e tin g s. Section 146-4 of the Colleg e Park Code, a nd ce rt ain other 6 jurisdictions also allow denial of a permit if the conc entration of persons will be such as to interf

er e with prope r fireand police protection and ambulance se rv ic e to n e arb y are a s. As were a d th os e prov isi on s, the ir purpose is t o addre ss traff ic flow and not to permit consideration of crowd control re quirements. In fac t, the two provisions frequ entl y appea r toge ther. See§24-369(4) of the Baltimore C ounty Code; §14-24(6) of the Gre enbelt Code, §14-24( 6); §123-4D of the Chestertown Code. T o the extent that s u ch provisions are , in fac t, aimed only at traf fic flow, the y would be valid. I ti s our vi ew t hat enfor cementof t hes e pol i ci es , i n t he abs ence of adopt i on und ert he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur e A ct , r ai s es s i g n i f i c a n tc o n s t i tu t i o n a l c o n c e r n s a b o u te x c e s s a d mi n i s t r a t i ve d iscreti o n . W e stron g lyen co u rag e th e D ep artm en t to m o v e f o rw ard w ith th e a d o p tio n o f

re g u la tio n s .

IV Loca l Subdi vi s i ons A . Co n side ra tio n o

f P o lice P ro tec tio n R e q u ire m e n ts Sect i on §24- 369( 2) of t he B al t i m or e C ount yC ode, §15- 29( 4) of t he G r eenbe l t C ode, and §123- 4B of t he C hes t er t ow n C ode ea ch al l ow deni al of a pe r m i tupon a det er m i nat i on t hatco n ductof t he par ade orm eet i ng w i l l r equi r e the di ver s i on of s o gr eata number of adj ace ntar eas as t o pr event nor m al pol i ce pr ot ect i on i n ot herar eas of t he countyorci t y . T hes e pro v isi ons w oul d al l ow an 5 a d mi n i s t r a t o r t o d e n ya p e r mi tt o a g r o u p wi t h u n p o p u l a rv i e ws so lelyo n th e g ro u n d th a t p ro tec tin g th e g ro u p f ro m o th e rs w o u ld re q u ir e to o m a n yp o lic e o f f ic e rs . It is o u r v iew th a t, ju st a s th e n e e d f o r p o lice p ro tec tio n d u e to ant i ci pated by s t anderr eac t i on cannots er ve as a gr ound t o m ake sp e e c h m o re e x p e n siv e , ita lso c a n n o t se rv e a s a g ro u n d to b a n it alt o g ethe r. T h ere fo re, i t i s o u r v iew that thes e p rov isi o n s are i nval i d. 6G en. 75] 83

We h av e fo un d one provision where the f ee is to be se t by

local 7 officials, as it was in Fo rsy th

. §24-368(e ) of the Baltimore County Code. However, wehave been informed that the fee is se t for all per mits and not on a c a se -b y-c a seba sis . It is our vie w that, as so a pp lie d, theprov isi on

is constitutional, so long as the c ounty is able to show that the fe e is in fac t related to the administrat i ve costs of the ir regulation. Murdock v. Com mo nwe alt

h o f Pe nn sy lvan ia , 319 U.S. 105 n.8 (1943). B . Fee W

aivers Sect i on 59- 1D of t he P erry vi l l e C ode s et s a perm i tfee of $500 b u t p ro v id e s th a t th e C o m m iss io n e rs m a yw a iv e th e f e e “ a t th e ir d isc re tio n .” S e c tio n 1 2 3 -3 D o f th e C h e ste rto w n C o d e se ts a p e rm it f e e o f $ 5 b u t p ro v id e s th a t th e M a y o r a n d C o u n c il h a v e “ th e rig h t to w ai ve anyfee

. ” N ei t heror di nance pr ovi des anys t andar ds t o be a p p lie d in d e te rm in in g w h e th e r a f e e s h o u ld b e w a iv e d

. In th e a b se n c e o f

su c h sta n d a rd s, lo c a l o f f icia ls a r e lef

t w ith u n f e ttere d d isc re tio n to d isc rim in a te o n th e b a sis o f v iew p o in t. Th e r e f o r e , t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s a r e u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l

. Ev e n t h o u gh t he C hest e rtow n fee i s only$5 , t he co nst i tuti on al problem st i l l exis t s. S e e Fo rs y th , 112 S. C t

. at2405. 7 C . In su ra n c e a n d

B o n din gR e q u ire m e n ts C o lleg e P a rk re q u ire s an ap p lica n t to o b tain a n a p p ro v e d su re ty i ndemni t ybond orappr oved comprehensi ve l i abi l i t yi ns ur ance pol i cynami ng t he C i t y of C ol l ege Park as an addi t i onal i ns ur ed. T he i ns ur ance orbond m us tcoveral l cl ai m s forper s onal injury and pr oper t ydamage” fr om al l cl ai m s ar i s i ng fro m t he perm i ti s s ued pur s uantt o this c h apt er . ” Si m i l ar l y , §109- 11 of t he W es t m i ns t er C ode r equi r es an appl i cantt o gi ve bond t o t he C i t y foral l expens es r el at ed t o t he par ade, i ncl udi ng r i ot ous and tum ul tuous as s embl age of peopl e and va ndal i s m “att r i but abl e t o t he hol di ng of s uch par ade o r d e m o n stra tio n .” In e a c h c a se , the o rd in a n c e w o u ld a p p e a r to re q u ire c o v e ra g e o f

d a m a g e s c a u se d b yb y sta n d e r s a n d h o stile crow ds as w el l as part i ci pan t s. T he rul i ng i n Fo rs

y th w oul d pr ohi bi tappl i cat i on of a bondi ng o r in su ra n c e re q u ire m e n t th a t a p p lies to d a m a g e s c a u se d b yh o stile cr ow ds

. I n fac t , s om e cour t s have hel d bondi ng an d i ns ur ance r equi r ement s gener al l yi nval i d, becau se t he ef fec ti s t o r ender84 [7 8 O p . A tt ’y

A public event is one which interf ere s with the use by

the g eneral 8 public of a stre et, sidewalk, or other public wa y in Rockville. §12-151. s peec h, es peci al l y unpopul ar s peec h, m or e expens i ve oreven t o bar i tal t ogether

. For exampl e, i n I nvisible E mpi r e K

K K v. Mayorof T h u rm o n t, 700 F. Supp. 281 ( D

. M d. 1 9 8 8 ), t he courtfound t hat par ade i ns ur ance w as s i m pl y not avai l abl e t o t he K u K l ux K l an. T he cour tw enton t o fi nd t hatt he t ow n had fai l ed t o s how t hatt he i ns ur ance r equi r ement w as nece s s aryt o anycompel l i ng g o v e rn m e n tal in ter e st, g iv e n th a t th e to w n ’s g e n e ra l li a b ili ty insu ran ce w o u ld co v er a n y c laim s ag ains t th e tow n an d the to w n ’s i nter estcou l d be m ore narr ow l y ser ved by enfo rci ng i t s l aw s agai nst damage t o per s ons and prope r t y . A s i m i l arconcl us i on w as r eac hed i n E ast ern C on n. C i t izens A ct i on G ro u p v . P ow ers , 723 F. 2d 1050 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 3 ), w h e re th e c o u rt n o ted th a t in su ra n c e f o r su c h e v e n ts w a s d if f icu lt an d e x p e n siv e to o b tain e v e n f o r a n o n -c o n tro v e rsia l, c o m m u n ity -o rie n ted g ro u p a n d th a t o th e r ste p s c o u ld b e tak e n to m in im iz e th e ri s k o f lia b ility. See a l so C o lli n v . Sm ith , 447 F. Supp. 6 7 6 (N .D . Il l.) , af

f ’ d, 5 7 8 F

. 2 d 1 1 9 7 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 7 8 ). T hu s , i ti s o u rv i e w t h a tt h e Col l e g e Pa r k a n d W e s t mi n s t er in s u ra n c e a n d b o n d in g re q u ir e m e n ts a re u n c o n s titu tio n a l. D . P aym ent

f orP oli ce Protecti on S e c tio n 1 2 -1 5 3 o f

th e R o c k v ill e C o d e p ro v id e s th a t th e c ity m ayr equi r e an a ppl i cantfor a “publ i c event l i cens e” t o empl oyone or m ore speci al dep uty

s he r i ffs, l i censed un i form ed secu ri t yoff i cers , o r o th e r se c u r ityp e rso n n e l to k e e p o rd e r. If th is re q u ire m e n t is 8 appl ied in a w ayt hatal l ow s t he ci t yt o cons i dert he r eac t i ons of b y s t a n d e r s , i ti s i n di s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Fo rs

y th and w oul d be i nval i d. I n addi t i on, atl eas tone courthas hel d t hats ecur i t ycos t s m ay n o t b e i m p o sed o n an ap p li ca n t a t a ll. Invis i bl e Em pi r e Knight

s of K K K v. C i t y of W

. H aven, 6 0 0 F

. S u p p . 1 4 2 7 (D

. C o n n . 1 9 8 5 ). O th e rs h a v e h e ld th a t th e im p o sitio n o f se c u rityc o sts is in v a lid o n ly i f t h e a mou n t i s l e f

t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f l o c a l o f f i c i al s , t hus p e rm ittin g th e m to m a k e c o n te n t- b a s e d d e te r m in a tio n s . S to n e w a ll U n ion v. C i t

y of C olum bu s, 9 3 1 F .2 d 1 1 3 0 (6 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ), c e rt. d eni ed, 1 1 2 S .C t. 27 5 (1 9 9 1 ); Centr al Fl or i da Nucl e arFr eeze C am p a ig n v. W

als h , 7 7 4 F .2 d 1 5 1 5 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ), cer t

. deni ed ,G en. 75] 85 475 U

. S. 1120 ( 1986)

. A s t he R ockvi l l e or di nance s et s no s t andar ds for w h en s ecur i t yi s t o be r equi r ed, i tw oul d be uncons t i tut i onal u n d e r e ith e r s ta n d a rd

.
V C oncl usi on I n s um m ar y , i ti s ouropi ni on t hatt he St at e and l ocal pol i ci es d iscu ssed in this op inion sh o u ld b e rev ised p rom p tl yto co n fo rm th e m to th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t d isc u ss e d in Fors yth C ount

y v. N at i onal is tMovem ent
.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al Ka t h r yn M

. Ro we A s s is ta n t At tor ney G ener al Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce

E ditor ’s N

ote: R egul at i ons of t he D epart m ent of G ener al Ser vi ces on “demonstr at i ons and r al l i es , ” adopt eda f t eri s s s uance of t hi s opi ni on, m aybe found a tC O M A R 04. 05. 01. 07. T he r egul at i on of t he D epart m entof N atur al R es our ces d iscus s ed i n Par tI I I B above ha s been r epea l ed.