Opinion ID: 1550003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: potential problems

Text: Our State Police have been working closely with local police in various communities throughout the State in a continuing effort to keep abreast of potential civil disorder problems. In that respect therefore, we are already familiar generally with basic problems in these communities. However, these problems change and we should never become over confident to the end that we lose sight of the cause, as well as the effect of civil disturbances. The State Police Central Security Unit has distributed Security Summary Reports (Form 421) and Security Incident Reports (Form 420) (see Appendix G) to each police department. It is necessary that these reports be used routinely to inform the State Police of the situation in your community. We urge you to see that this vital intelligence is communicated to this central bureau for evaluation and dissemination. Plaintiffs say the Memorandum will result in police invasion of their First Amendment rights and build that complaint upon the content of forms 420 and 421 and the instructions for their preparation contained in Appendix G of the Memorandum. That appendix, including the forms, is reproduced at the end of this opinion. Form 420 calls for a report of an incident. As the instructions related to the form explain, the incident may be anticipated or in progress or completed. The form calls for a statement of the type of incident and the instructions give as Examples : Civil disturbance, riot, rally, protest, demonstration, march, confrontation, etc. The form calls for the names of the organizations or groups involved in the incident, and the instructions suggest as Examples of types : Left wing, Right wing, Civil Rights, Militant, Nationalistic, Pacifist, Religious, Black Power, Ku Klux Klan, Extremist, etc. and as Examples of How Involved : Sponsor, co-sponsor, supporter, assembled group, etc. Form 421 relates to an individual, as distinguished from an incident. Among the instructions appear: Spouses Full Name  Type full name of spouse. If wife, include maiden name or names by any other marriages, and Associates  Enter names and addresses of associates, include aliases and nicknames. List additional associates in Narrative. The Narrative portion of the form reads: citizenship/naturalization data  parental background/occupation  armed forces service/draft status  membership, affiliation and/or status with organizations or groups  education background  habits or traits  places frequented  parole/probation data  data on immediate family  financial/credit status  include other record of past activities, findings and/or observations. On the basis of the several items we have just collated, plaintiffs envision that a mere rally, protest, demonstration or march of a pacifist group will precipitate a police dossier of everyone who attends, including therein his butcher's and banker's opinion of his credit. Adverting then to the portion of the Memorandum quoted above which says it is necessary that these reports be used routinely to inform the State Police of the situation in your community and urges that the intelligence be communicated to this central bureau for evaluation and dissemination, plaintiffs enlarge upon their hypothetical horribles and see each such citizen harried amid his family, friends, and business associates. There is not an iota of evidence that anything of the kind has occurred or will, or that any person has been deterred by that prospect. The individual plaintiffs themselves do not claim to have been deterred. In their affidavits on the motion for judgment, one plaintiff says she is chairman of the Students for a Democratic Society at St. Peter's College, and as an example of her activity she tells of a sit-in at the office of the President. She adds that during a student strike which followed, pickets were photographed by two men in plain clothes in an unmarked car but there is no evidence as to their identity. [2] The husband of that affiant says he has participated in a number of marches, rallies, and protests in opposition to the Viet Nam war, in support of burners of draft cards, and in protest of some alleged racist policies of a large religious organization. He adds that he hopes to be a lawyer and fears the Memorandum may hinder my chances at being accepted at the law school of my choice; that although I have thus far not been deterred from exercising my First Amendment rights by the existence of the aforesaid memorandum, its existence is a factor which I must weigh in deciding whether or not to speak or act on a particular occasion; and that as an organizer of rallies, marches, protests and demonstrations, I feel that I must warn potential participants that, pursuant to the Attorney General's Memorandum they are subject to being investigated and classified by the police despite the lawfulness of our activity. Another affiant says she is a member of an urban renewal association and has picketed in support of its aims and as well against some alleged racist policies of the religious organization already referred to, but she says that she feels the existence of the memorandum may deter me from exercising my First Amendment rights in the future. She says she is particularly concerned lest a police investigation such as that directed by the memorandum lead my landlord to believe that I had done something illegal. Another affiant describes his activities, including picketing of police headquarters, a stand-in at a bank, a sit-in at a mayor's office, and the distribution of anti-war leaflets and peace marches. He says I cannot say that I will be deterred in the future from exercising my First Amendment rights but he believes that police surveillance, investigation, and cataloguing, and    disseminating the garnered information may jeopardize his right to associate with others should my activities become subject to the Attorney General's memorandum. The final affiant, the president of the Jersey City Branch of the NAACP, says that once our organization and its members are investigated and categorized as per the memorandum, other persons in the community who are potential supporters    will disassociate themselves from any NAACP activity and a valuable audience will be lost. The foregoing is a resume of the record upon which the trial court held that the portion of the Memorandum we quoted above, entitled Potential Problems, and forms 420 and 421 violate the First Amendment, and granted sweeping injunctive relief we will discuss later in this opinion. There was no evidence that the Memorandum was intended or has been read by local police officials to call for any action which invades a constitutionally protected area. There was no evidence that the Attorney General intended to intimidate anyone. Nor does it appear that he even sought to publicize the use of these forms. Indeed, according to the affidavit of Lieutenant Goch of the State Police submitted on the motion for reconsideration, there is no form 420 or 421 as to any of the plaintiffs, and there is no index file on any of them except one, and as to him only because of an arrest record going back to 1963.