everything is in progress what else comes together like now?	info	bug report

School of the Americas Watch, Roy Bourgeois, Jeff Winder, Eric LeCompte and Becky Johnson, Plaintiffs vs. Bobby Peters, W.L. Dozier, and the Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia, Defendants Plaintiffs, as representatives of those persons planning to participate in a public forum and demonstration pursuant to a permit issued by the City of Columbus for November 16-17, 2002, seek to have this Court enjoin Defendants from implementing a public safety plan that includes conducting "magnetometer" searches of all demonstration participants. Plaintiffs contend that such searches violate their free speech and assembly rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and violate their right to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Preliminarily, the Court observes that law enforcement is placed in a difficult situation when faced with the sometimes conflicting interests of maintaining public safety while also ensuring that the citizens it is pledged to protect are provided with the opportunity to exercise their fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Although law enforcement are sometimes criticized and derided, they should be commended for their efforts in a difficult, often impossible, job, particularly given the post-September 11 environment. They are criticized when their actions appear to tilt too much in favor of public safety and infringe upon fundamental rights, and they are criticized when they do not go far enough and a tragedy occurs. From their perspective, they have no choice but to err on the side of public safety. The Court, however, is given the luxury of being able to read briefs and cases and contemplate the constitutional implications of government conduct in the quiet of a judge's chambers. Our job, while not easy, is far less burdensome but equally as important. The Courts are charged with the awesome responsibility of protecting the fundamental rights of citizens that, if eliminated solely in the name of public safety, would be an abandonment of the promise of our great Country. In this case, there is no doubt a conflict between the compelling interest in public safety and the individual's fundamental rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches -- the very rights that motivated our forefathers to break their bond with their mother country and form a new country. With these preliminary thoughts in mind, the Court will now examine each of the Plaintiff's Claims. First Amendment Plaintiffs' First Amendment claim is intertwined with their Fourth Amendment challenge. They contend that to exercise their First Amendment rights to participate in the demonstration, they are begin required to forfeit their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. Under First Amendment jurisprudence, the Courts have made it clear that under some circumstances magnetometer searches done for the purpose of detecting dangerous devices are permissible as content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions within the constraints of the First Amendment. The Court must determine on a case-by-case basis whether a compelling government interest exists for the magnetometer searches, and if so, whether the searches are a narrowly crafted means of serving that compelling government interest. The Court finds in this case that there is a compelling government interest to maintain public safety, security, and order, which includes physical protection of demonstrations participants, spectators, passers-by and law enforcement. There is also a compelling government interest, however, to preserve free speech and assembly rights of the demonstration participants. The Court finds that balancing these two sets of rights, the City has crafted a narrowly tailored means to protect the public and still ensure that the demonstration participants have the right to express their views. The Court further finds that the face that everyone will be searched in the same manner indicates that the restriction is content neutral; that content neutral purpose being the detection of dangerous devices. The Court further notes that although no evidence is in the record to show a history of physical violence resulting in personal injuries associated with SOA Watch demonstrations, this does not mean that these demonstrations have a history of "peacefulness" or "lawfulness." In fact, evidence clearly exists to show that some of the participants have demonstrated a complete disrespect for the law and that the leadership has even encouraged the law to be broken to further their cause. The Court notes that this disrespect for the law has not been a disrespect for a law that the demonstrators claim is unjust (which is the typical true form of civil disobedience), but this disrespect for the law is seen apparently as some means of bringing attention to their cause. This past history of disrespect for the law combined with the irrefutable fact that the leaders of the SOA Watch cannot possibly control the number of participants expected to attend this year's demonstration provides additional support for Defendant's decision to conduct limited magnetometer searches. Therefore, the Court finds that the magnetometer searches as described in the City's Plan, do not violate the First Amendment. Fourth Amendment We next turn to the Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Claim. The Court recognizes that the magnetometer scan is a "search" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The question is whether the circumstances are such that it is an unreasonable search, given the fact that it will be a blanket search of everyone and will not be based on any individual determination of suspicion or probable cause. The Court must first analyze the level of intrusiveness of the search. The Court looks at three factors: 1) physical contact between searcher and person searched; 2) exposure of intimate body parts; 3) the use of force. The Court finds that the magnetometer search the City proposes is minimally intrusive. The Court must next look at the purpose of the search. Credible evidences supports a finding that the purpose is not to detect unlawful activity or criminal wrongdoing, but the purpose is aimed at detecting dangerous devices to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and law enforcement. Therefore, the Court finds that the compelling state interest of public safety exists supporting the limited magnetometer search, and that the magnetometer search is a narrowly tailored and minimally intrusive manner of protecting that compelling government interest. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court declines to pre-emptively declare the City's plan unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of establishing that Defendants' conduct violates their constitutional rights. Accordingly, their motion is denied and this case dismissed. It is so ordered, this 15th day of November, 2002. Clay D. Land, United States District Judge

next next will be next view reactions	3789 reactions	A news page from bigcheese
login or register group pages react to page		Jump to another page completely randomgeekynewsartopinionpoetryreligionhumor
I looked for it, and I found it. REM
Obscure Store
Powered by WhoNose Static link: http://www.paperlove.org/?bid=74