Court Opinion

ID: 9709981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:58:56.732574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:53.199675
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
Franck’s initial conduct was not illegal and was within the parameters of the injunction, i.e., “two people” at a time may “quietly and peacefully picket.” Her conduct became illegal as a result of the actions of other people. At first blush this appears to be unfair, but a person cannot evade responsibility by permitting the act enjoined to be done by others in her presence and with her acquiescence. See 43A C.J.S. Injunctions § 296(b) (1978).
Franck had the right to be where she was, doing what she was, prior to the time *112the other demonstrators arrived. Once they arrived, blocked the driveway, carried on the other disruptive activities prohibited by the injunction, and the police officer ordered everyone, including Franck, to disperse, that was no longer true. Cf. State v. Elliston, 159 N.W.2d 503 (Iowa 1968) [Evidence sustained unlawful assembly conviction of defendant who was among people engaged in loud disturbance and who refused to move on when told to do so by police officer]. Under the circumstances, the police were not required to attempt to separate the two or three people who had been peacefully at the location from those who were obviously there to create a disturbance. The officers were entitled to direct everyone, including Franck, to leave so that calm and order could be restored. When Franck refused that order of the police officer, she indicated her participation in the enjoined activities.
If Franck has a complaint it is not with this proceeding. Her complaint is against the demonstrators who, by their actions, converted her peaceful, legal activity into an illegal, enjoined activity.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.