Opinion ID: 548692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Findings of the District Court.

Text: 5 We draw our factual summary from the district court's findings of fact, set forth in Town of West Hartford v. Operation Rescue, 726 F.Supp. 371, 373-75 (D.Conn.1989). 6 This case arises from demonstrations conducted at the Center, which is a health care facility that provides medical services, including abortions, to women. The Center shares occupancy of a building within a shopping center at 345 North Main Street, West Hartford, Connecticut with several other businesses, including medical and dental offices. 7 On April 1 and June 17, 1989, large groups of demonstrators gathered outside the Center to protest its abortion practices. The demonstrators picketed, distributed leaflets, and attempted to persuade women not to enter the Center or to have abortions. Among the demonstrators were certain individuals--termed rescuers by the district court--who, as part of the protests, entered and/or blocked the offices of the Center in order to close down the Center and prevent the performance of abortions. During each protest, rescuers occupied the Center for the entire business day, despite demands that they leave by Center employees, an employee of the landlord, and the West Hartford police. Elevators were disabled, and access impeded both within and to the Center, as well as to other facilities within the building. During the April 1 protest, patients entering the Center and its treatment rooms encountered a gauntlet of rescuers who urged the patients not to have abortions. The June 17 protest prevented the treatment of any patients at the Center that day. A receptionist at the Center had an anxiety attack on June 17, and four Center employees quit their jobs, citing their fear of the protests. 8 Approximately forty police officers from the Town responded to the scene on both occasions, together with an ambulance and paramedic team under contract with the Town. The ambulance and paramedics were also on hand when arrestees from the demonstrations were processed at a local court. Members of the Town fire department were summoned on April 1 to separate five rescuers who had used locks to fasten themselves together. 9 Large numbers of people were arrested at both protests: sixty-one on April 1, and two hundred sixty-one on June 17. They were charged with criminal trespass, interfering with a police officer, and refusal to be processed. The latter charges were premised upon the demonstrators' passive resistance (i.e., their refusal to walk or display identification after being arrested). 10 In the words of the district court, [t]he demonstration and rescue was organized, prepared, and orchestrated. 726 F.Supp. at 374. On both occasions, persons described as negotiators gave instructions to the arrested persons and told officials that they were authorized to speak for the arrestees. The negotiator on April 1 was a man known only as Bill. The negotiator on June 17 was defendant William A. Calvin. 11 The district court further stated that [t]here appears to be a substantial association of people who are committed to eliminating the availability of abortions. The association appears to be loose and not formed. 726 F.Supp. at 375. Groups have associated under the names Connecticut Pro-Life Action Network, Faithful and True Roman Catholics, and Operation Rescue. Id. Defendant-appellant Randall A. Terry proclaims a role in the latter organization, which, like the other groups named, was not shown to have a legal status. 12 Defendants John Kladde, John Charles Grant, Catherine A. Jersey, William A. Calvin, William P. Cotter, Hjalmar Syversen, Lillian A. Loughlin and Jean Pollock were all shown to have been personally involved as rescuers. Id. An individual named Haggerty was involved, but not clearly identified as Eileen Haggerty, the named defendant. Id. 13