Opinion ID: 50384
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: General Safety Concerns

Text: The district court stated in its order below that, after reviewing the DVD of the May 21, 2005, incident, “the Court concludes that the officers were not prohibiting the [SPF members’] demonstration, but again, merely trying to move the [SPF members] away from the intersection for the safety of drivers as well as the [SPF members].” (01/25/06 Dist. Ct. Ruling at 9). This conclusion was erroneous for several reasons. First, the motivations for the officers’ actions on May 21, 2005, say little, if anything, about the officers’ motivations on 9 Although not necessary to our decision, we note that the DVD of the February 12, 2005, incident shows police cars parked on the paved shoulder of Highway 165. As the cars were more than two feet wide, this evidence appears to conflict with the district court’s finding that the paved shoulder is only two feet wide. The DVD suggests that the width of the paved shoulder might vary, but it is, at the very least, a fact issue. 22 February 12, 2005. Indeed, it is not clear that the same officers were involved in each incident. Second, the DVD is far from conclusive evidence that the officers were only concerned about the safety of drivers and Plaintiffs on May 21. The DVD shows that the officers claimed to be relying on state law when they required Plaintiffs to stand over twenty-five feet from the intersection of Highway 165 and Pearl Street. However, the district court had already ruled that the Standing statute, section 32:143, did not apply to Plaintiffs’ conduct and had preliminarily enjoined Columbia from enforcing the statute against Plaintiffs. Columbia has offered no other justification for the twenty-five foot rule. Further, Coleman was arrested for violating section 14:108, the Resisting statute, but, again, there is no evidence on the DVD that he interfered with an officer making an arrest, seizing property, or serving process. See Huguet, 369 So. 2d at 1333. The district court had also enjoined the use of that statute against Plaintiffs. Finally, it is a fact question whether the traffic conditions were hazardous enough to require Plaintiffs to refrain from standing near the intersection. Indeed, other pedestrians were permitted to walk through the areas in which Plaintiffs wished to stand. Therefore, the police officers’ motivations on May 21, 2005, are far from clear. Columbia tries to analogize its case to one considered by the Eighth Circuit in Frye v. Kansas City Missouri Police 23 Department, 375 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2004). In Frye, the plaintiffs demonstrated against abortion by standing on the side of a road holding signs, some of which contained pictures of mutilated fetuses. Id. at 788. Following complaints from drivers, the police gave the plaintiffs the choice of either relocating to a different portion of the road or taking down the graphic signs. Id. Several demonstrators were arrested under the loitering ordinance when they refused to obey. Id. The Eighth Circuit found no First Amendment violation. The court stated that the officers’ actions were not motivated by the content of the signs, but rather out of a concern for public safety. Id. at 790 (holding that the plaintiffs’ message was not suppressed, but only regulated as to time, place, and manner). The facts in the instant lawsuit are distinguishable from those in Frye. First, it is unclear how the Eighth Circuit arrived at the conclusion that the officers’ actions were not motivated by the content of the signs; therefore, the evidence may be markedly different. Second, the officers in Frye did not completely stop the demonstration, but permitted it to continue in a different place or with different signs.10 Here, there is no evidence that on February 12, 2005, Columbia gave Plaintiffs any option other than to stop the demonstration entirely. If 10 We do not necessarily hold that the approach taken by the officers in Frye would be acceptable in this case. Each case must be decided on its own facts. 24 this is the case, it is questionable whether the cessation of the demonstration altogether was narrowly tailored. The Seventh Circuit encountered a similar situation in Ovadal v. City of Madison, 416 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2005). In Ovadal, the plaintiff, Ralph Ovadal, demonstrated against homosexuality by holding up signs on pedestrian overpasses. Id. at 533-34. Responding to complaints by drivers that the signs were causing traffic problems, police officers eventually told Ovadal that he was no longer allowed to display his signs on pedestrian overpasses, citing the disorderly conduct statute. Id. at 534. The Seventh Circuit determined there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ovadal’s First Amendment rights had been violated. Id. at 537-38. The court found fact issues as to whether the ban on Ovadal’s actions was contentneutral, whether it was narrowly tailored, whether the city would have banned all demonstrations on pedestrian overpasses regardless of content, whether a rule that banned demonstrators if their signs caused traffic problems could even be applied in a content-neutral manner, and whether the ban was really just aimed at Ovadal. Id.11 11 On remand, the district court in Ovadal held a bench trial and found that the restriction was content-neutral and satisfied strict scrutiny. Ovadal v. City of Madison, No. 04-C- 322-S, 2005 WL 3434402, at  (W.D. Wis. Dec. 13, 2005). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision, Ovadal v. City of Madison, 469 F.3d 625, 631 (7th Cir. 2006), and Ovadal has filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. 25 Ovadal is similar to the instant case in that there is simply too much uncertainty about the motivations of the governmental action to determine whether a First Amendment violation took place. Here, as discussed above, the reason for the police officers’ actions on February 12, 2005, is a fact question. Further, Miles, the officer who threatened Plaintiffs with arrest, had previously made comments indicating he did not approve of Plaintiffs’ graphic signs. When combined with the lack of undisputed evidence as to why Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were restricted, there is a fact issue regarding whether the officers were actually motivated by the content of Plaintiffs’ demonstration, which prevents summary judgment on the issue of whether the restriction was content-based or contentneutral. Without knowing the motivation for the restriction, we cannot determine which test to apply--strict scrutiny or a lesser level of scrutiny. Summary judgment on this issue was, thus, inappropriate, and we must reverse the district court’s decision to grant Columbia’s motion for summary judgment; however, we will affirm the district court’s decision to deny Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, as there are fact issues in this case. 26 C. Other Relief Finally, Plaintiffs requested, and were denied, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. To the extent Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their First Amendment rights were violated by Columbia’s restriction of their demonstration on February 12, 2005, we must reverse for the above-stated reasons. If Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that they may demonstrate in Columbia in the future and injunctive relief to that effect, we also reverse so that the district court may make this ruling after determining whether Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are actually being infringed. As for attorneys’ fees, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides that courts, in their discretion, may award attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties in § 1983 cases. Because the prevailing party is yet unknown in this case, we also reverse the district court’s ruling on attorneys’ fees.