Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/404262607/St-Louis-Motion
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:07:26+00:00

Document:
City of St. Louis motion to dissolve preliminary injunction that set new rules for city police use of chemical agents against protesters.
Warn Industries v. Harbor Freight Tools Et. Al.
Sportshields v. Pro Performance Sports et. al.
of making this accommodation to this Court, it demands vigilant judicial self-restraint.
Frankfurter, J., KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77, 86 (1949).
were. Pepper spray or mace is not "the new fire hose." III Prel.Inj.Tr.[doc. 64] 32.
action be dismissed, consistent with F.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) and 60(b)(4)-(6).
plaintiffs themselves or their witnesses, or drawn from recognized media sources.
class should be considered by the Court in deciding the motion to dissolve and dismiss.
equitable jurisdiction is lacking in this case.
the whole responded to extremely difficult challenges with disciplined effectiveness. St.
violent, with assaults on police or other persons and damage to private property. Id., Ex.
of streets dispersed without incident; on others, protesters were arrested.
police protests, which did not involve use of chemical agents or arrests.
held spray cans or streamers. See Motion to Dissolve, Ex. T (Baumgartner) Ex. 2C.
are not specially equipped. Id. at 31.
depo.) at 47; see also Motion Ex. B.
proceeded through the intersection. Motion to Dissolve, Ex. C (video excerpts 9/15/17).
police headquarters. II Prel.Inj. Tr. [doc. 63] at 148-49 (Sachs testimony); Motion Ex. C.
Clark Streets, reinforced by many of the group that had marched to Olive and Tucker.
Motion Ex. C; see also I Prel.Inj.Tr. [doc. 62] 270-72, II Prel.Inj.Tr. [doc. 63] at 143.
with locked arms with other protesters blocking a CDT bus and refused orders to move.
September 15 and at nearly every "protest" during the fall of 2017.
Motion to Dissolve, Ex. C-F; II Prel.Inj.Tr. [doc. 63] 130.
Prel.Inj.Tr. [doc. 63] at 118-19.
eventually dispersed without further incident; however, the day was not over.
quiet neighborhood near Lake and Waterman Avenues in the City's Central West End.
Prel.Inj.Tr. [doc. 63] at 159ff.
which brought police lines to Euclid--complained about the police tactics. I Prel.Inj.Tr.
thereafter, the police withdrew as the protest groups had dissipated.
other foot or vehicular traffic to pass. Motion Ex. E; II Prel.Inj.Tr. [doc. 63] at 184-85.
windows, overturn planters, and engage in other miscellaneous vandalism. Motion, Ex.
protesters re-emerged and proceeded from Olive to Locust Street and west to Tucker. Id.
disperse. At that time, there were multiple avenues open to protesters to leave the area.
Ex. R (Karnowski depo.) 113; I Prel.Inj.Tr. [doc. 62] 60, 187, 194, 252; II Prel.Inj.Tr.
indictment has resulted from that incident. Class Cert. Motion doc.
the great majority of other officers during the protests.
Washington mass arrest as evidence of a City "custom" causing constitutional violations.
been part of the crowd when property was damaged earlier--to disband. II Prel.Inj.Tr.
police and animated by the Stockley verdict. See Motion to Dissolve, Ex. F; I Prel.Inj.Tr.
prior to 2017. Motion to Dissolve, Ex. V, Ex. W (Becherer depo.) at 111-12.
officer discretion and reasonable use of hand-held chemical agents. Id. at 33-35.
enforce the law in accordance with its terms, using non-lethal force only when necessary.
(Ahmad depo.) 63-64, Ex. M (Mobley depo.) 13-14, 53, Ex. N (Lewczuk depo.) 158-59.
anti-police demonstration, see Langford v. City of St. Louis, 4:18-CV-02037.
(and its officers') right to trial by jury.
chemical agents by police, is virtually nil.
be remitted to actions at law.
not equitable for the preliminary injunction to remain in force.
described by the Supreme Court as warranting special consideration under Rule 60(b).
have significant preclusive effect on the damage suits. Reply Memo. [doc. 119] p. 17.
Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, et al. 4:18-CV-01677; Fareed Alston v.
City of St. Louis, et al. 4:18-CV-01569; Amir Brandy v. City of St.
Louis, et al. 4:18-CV-01674; Brian Baude v. City of St. Louis, et al.
DeMian v. City of St. Louis, et al. 4:18-CV-01680; Alison Dreith v.
City of St. Louis, et al. 4:18-CV-01565; Michael Faulk v. City of St.
Louis, et al. 4:18-CV-00308; Darryl Gray v. City of St. Louis, et al.
al. 4:18-CV-01576; Christopher Robertson v. City of St. Louis, et al.
Ziegler v. City of St. Louis, et al. 4:18-CV-00308.
factors determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S.
plaintiffs will be injured. This concatenation of ifs does not support injunctive relief.
slight the preconditions for equitable relief, which in any event is to be used "sparingly."
against those in charge of an executive branch of state or local government. See Rizzo v.
Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976).
not suffice to support the Court's intervention prospectively in the operation of the St.
would trench upon police enforcement of those statutes.
beyond the equitable powers of the Court. F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)&(h), 60(b)(4).
THE COURT: And why is it civil disobedience?
the definition of civil disobedience.
holding place for police to wage war on citizens.
THE COURT: Go ahead with your cross-examination.
A I was standing in solidarity with my community.
City streets and sidewalks at will, so long as they are engaged in "expressive activity,"
important, see Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007).
future criminal prosecutions, its principles were embellished and applied in Rizzo v.
power to supervise a police department is limited by principles of equity and federalism.
serious injury to an officer, and directing more training. The Supreme Court reversed.
he would have another encounter with the police and also make the "incredible"
of Rizzo and Lyons apply.
threat of contempt to make their lot even more difficult.
chemical agents without warning or legal authority.
threatening or behaving unlawfully, when it is not feasible to make individual arrests.
the recorder is a threat or is interfering with police actions. See Motion to Dissolve, Ex.
T (Baumgartner depo.) Ex. 2D.
violated, and seek to disperse a disorderly assembly.
organizer ever even inquired about permits in September 2017.
an intent to confront police. Motion to Dissolve Ex. E.
strollers and dogs on leashes actually joining the marchers. See Motion to Dissolve, Ex.
lines or compel protesters to move away from police buses. Motion to Dissolve, Ex. C.
17. Motion to Dissolve, Ex. K (Golden depo.) 18-19.
threat to officers, or resist arrest, that mace or other non-lethal force is sometimes used.
judged from the standpoint of the officer on the scene, rather than by judicial hindsight.
Id.; cf. Motion to Dissolve, Ex. K (Golden depo.) at 10.
he is expected to enforce. Frye v. KCMO Police Dept., 375 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2004).
its deliberate conduct, the municipality was the "moving force" behind the injury alleged.
hypothetical future injury from law enforcement practices.
negated claim of "custom" having force of law).
of way, and otherwise to quell unlawful conduct.
reasonable to conclude that the group was acting as a unit and had committed a crime.
individual's status. 665 F.3d at 1004-05.
to Dissolve, Ex. H, J.
policy having the force of law, i.e., virtually legitimizing the conduct complained of. Cf.
of chemical agents by police is concerned.
of such unlawful act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
17.16.275 - Impeding and interfering with pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
interfere, hinder or delay the reasonable movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
driveway, entrance/exit to a garage and entrance/exit to a parking pad.
enforcement or emergency response personnel.
v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972).
process." 687 F.3d at 1041; see also Duhe v. City of Little Rock, 902 F.3d 858 (8th Cir.
vague or overbroad about these provisions.
force or violence. It cannot be seriously doubted that this ordinance is facially valid.
This Court has not held otherwise.
Plaintiffs' "as applied" challenges likewise fail.
acts with force or violence, or intentionally impeding traffic flow on public streets.
plaintiffs present a live controversy on the basis of an "as applied" theory.
plaintiffs and their putative class were involved were not "permitted,"
on probable cause for conduct falling within the ordinances' proscriptions. Cf. Colten v.
order. There is no unbridled discretion.
15 at Tucker and Clark, on September 15 in the Central West End, and on September 17.
Los Angeles v. Lyons, supra; cf. Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117 (1951).
(1988)(ordinance forbidding "congregating" not vague or overbroad).
such conduct). Bernini v. City of St. Paul, supra.
Washington10--is contrary to law and should be dissolved.
of non-lethal force, when faced with illegal conduct by protesters.
but would render the City powerless to police abortion clinic protests.
opportunity to disperse when the police have probable cause to arrest.
foreseeable that bystanders could be affected).
potential criminal prosecution to serve as the deterrent to unlawful police behavior.
alternative remedies. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. at 502-03.
justiciable claim for equitable relief.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.