Legal Beagle input needed...UPDATE POST 145 - Page 3

[mysticmomma]

Do you have a HOA?

[philomom]

Write President Obama. He has kids. Maybe if the whole neighborhood wrote him.

[Code Name Mama]

Originally Posted by Theoretica

I already asked the police 'hypothetically' what would happen if folks randomly had car trouble, they said they'd have to tow our cars.



That's what we're wondering. But it's there. It states, and I quote (minus identifying details): The Specific City Police and/or their agents will not issue citations, make arrests, or file criminal charges against The Driver Or Their Organization for violations of the unlawful picketing statute or disturbing the peace statute. The Specific City is also ordered that prior to issuing a citation against The Driver Or Their Group, the lawyers for The Specific City will meet with the lawyers for The Driver And Their Group and attempt to reach an amicable resolution concerning any alleged unlawful speech or conduct.



I can't say on here, I'm sorry. If I specify the state it'll pretty much identify me to the internet since I'm directly involved in this case. Suffice it to say the state actually doesn't matter.



We have gotten publicity, but it doesn't seem to matter much. Maybe we need more/bigger publicity? The ACLU has actually represented the truck driver. They are looking into the legality of the federal judge telling the city not to enforce state law,. They're getting back to me next week.

We've contacted litigation lawyers. We're having a hard time getting someone to take the case because of The Driver And His ORganization's litigation team that works for free.



We spoke to the city council last week at their meeting. They didn't even mention that they had agreed not to prosecute this guy for breaking the law. The laws say he can't do what he's doing. The federal judge said the police are 'enjoined from enforcing state law' specifically pertaining to THIS situation and THIS driver/organization. I can't fathom how this is legal.



He lost at the state level, his legal team appealed to the federal court and it was settled between the parties. I'm getting the impression our county attorney just rolled over and handed this guy our rights.



We're working on finding an attorney. The problem is HIS lawyers are free (for him). Whenever he's been arrested for this in the past (prior to the injunction preventing him from being arrested), he's had his bail waiting for him before he got to the station.

The ACLU has actually represented HIM before. They ARE looking into the legality of the federal judge's ruling, but it doesn't look too promising. I'll find out next week.



There's no pending vote regarding the issue he's protesting.



How would I get more information on state specific requirements for this? We've got several kids in the neighborhood now in therapy for the stress this is causing. Kids w/nightmares, kids w/panic attacks when they hear large motor trucks like the UPS guy...



Nope. We're trying to get the obscenity laws to include language that prohibits graphic/violent pictures, but nothing yet. They are VERY careful.



Hmmmm....I HuffPo, would I just email them? or call? I'm not clear on how to contact national media?



I actually thought of this, we'd have to have it donated though. And we wouldn't want them up all the time. And he drives through for an hour at a time, about twice a month. I don't know that we'd be able to do anything like that in a timely enough manner to make a difference?

Thanks for the ideas and support....we have a meeting tomorrow with the police, keep the brainstorms going

P.S. And thank you SO MUCH for keeping this on topic and solution oriented!!!

What state are you in? I'll see if I can find the elements for you. Personally, I think it's time to go talk to a lawyer. A good lawyer should be able to read through the judge's order and figure out what legal grounds he has for telling the police not to interfere.

I haven't read all the updates, but let me just say one other thing (not legal though): everyone who is saying to get the media (esp. the nat'l media) involved - isn't that what these people want? They WANT the media exposure. They want the big brouhahas made over their graphic pictures. Heck, that's why they drive around with the crap all over their trucks in the first place. When I was trying to find ideas online (in response to the OP), I read a quote from someone who supports these trucks - it went something like, "yeah, Planned Parenthood might be getting increased donations as a protest to our trucks, but we are getting even more attention and support. So the collateral benefits to PP don't really bother us." (obviously not a direct quote)

KWIM?

[philomom]

OMGosh. I just googled a tad and found out where this is happening and the man responsible. I would be livid. To inflict horror on innocent minds that way... is beyond disgusting.:

[HarperRose]

Originally Posted by philomom

OMGosh. I just googled a tad and found out where this is happening and the man responsible. I would be livid. To inflict horror on innocent minds that way... is beyond disgusting.:

You know what's sick? I googled, too, and it's happening in a few states.

I would come unglued if someone did that to my kids. You can't UNsee things!

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by tinuviel_k

I get that free speech is important but what they are showing is beyond rated R. It would be against the law to show children images like that in a movie or TV show.

No, actually, it wouldn't.

The movie ratings system (and the video game ratings system) is an entirely voluntary industry-sponsored thing. The MPAA sets the ratings scale, rates the movies, and all their members (the movie studios) tell the theaters they better abide by it if they want to get first-run movies released to them. Video game makers similarly threaten to withhold distribution from retailers who don't support the ESRB system. FCC regulations and fines prevent the broadcast of such images before bedtime.

Unfortunately, the only laws about display of graphic images relate to sexual images, not violent/gory ones (at least, that is my understanding; IANAL and I could be wrong). That's why I think that suing for the emotional harm inflicted on the children (and it sounds like there's already documentation of that, and expenses related to it) and going to the media are the best options available (as well as organizing the neighborhood to alert each other, and that would be a good media angle too).

[Porcelain Interior]

Have you contacted other related organizations that think this is going too far?

If I'm guessing correctly? Because I think a lot of people within this particular branch/viewpoint wouldn't agree with this particular practice or way of getting a "point or message" across.

I just don't understand why there aren't thousands of (related organizations) freaking on this guy and what he's doing.

[mysticmomma]

maybe it will stop after commencement?

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by MahnaMahna

When I was trying to find ideas online (in response to the OP), I read a quote from someone who supports these trucks - it went something like, "yeah, Planned Parenthood might be getting increased donations as a protest to our trucks, but we are getting even more attention and support. So the collateral benefits to PP don't really bother us." (obviously not a direct quote)

I think that, if the media hit the angle that these people are hurting children to make their point, it will erode an awful lot of their ability to get support. It will completely break them from the more "mainstream" elements of the same cause, and will give the cause in general a negative hit. They may not agree... they may like being famous too much to care what damage they do to national opinion on the matter. But at some point, if they do enough damage to the cause overall, SOMEONE on "their side" will tell them to cut it out.

[ccohenou]

It just seems to me that the more stink you raise about this, the more motivated the organization will be to continue targeting your neighborhood to get more press and legal/media martyrdom.

If a court found that police were using traffic laws or picketing laws unconstitutionally to suppress the particular content of this group's speech, that would be why they might have issued an order that no unapproved citations should be issued.

I get that this is gross and I would be offended if it drove around my neighborhood, too. But I think the law is probably on the truck's side if you are in the US, unless he is making loud noises or violating traffic laws.

[Code Name Mama]

This 9th Circuit opinion may be of interest to you. A discussion of First Amendment rights starts at page 7994 (IIED was not at issue).

[doctormom]

I would be furious if someone deliberately exposed my children to such graphic images. There's freedom of political speech, and then there's infringing upon the innocence of children.

The website for the organization responsible includes links to past legal action, and one of their court filings states that they have specifically targeted middle and high school students with their trucks. There was a lawsuit between the organization and a major metropolitan area's police department & school district (trucks driving past the schools). The US Supreme Court declined to review that specific case just a few months ago, but it made its way through several levels of the court system at the state and federal level. I agree with the PP who said that this organization is desperate for publicity, and that the more media attention you create for them locally, the happier they will be.

I'm sorry you aren't getting more support. I think the issue involved is so politically charged that your community law enforcement is afraid to get involved, especially because the organization is quick to file lawsuits. I hope they will move on quickly from your neighborhood, and that the children involved will receive the support they need to process any trauma they experienced from viewing the extremely graphic photos.

[Barbamama]

Originally Posted by Theoretica

They drive through our neighborhood 20-30 times in an hour and make a point of slowing down in front of the kids (we're talking a fairly 'off the beaten path' SMALL neighborhood of four streets forming a 1/2 mile circle), every few weeks during the warmer months. This has been going on for the past several years. The images are horrific and have caused documented trauma and emotional stress to many children in the neighborhood.

OMG that's awful!

Not giving legal advice here (ahem) but there's a legal doctrine of nuisance that may be applicable. It's defined in different ways from state to state, so you'll need to check with a lawyer, but the general gist of it is that you're entitled to the "peaceful enjoyment" of your property, and you can sue to bring a stop to activities that interfere with that enjoyment.

One wrinkle: in the classic examples they give us in law school, the doctrine is applied as between neighboring property owners -- e.g., neighbor A has a kennel that he never cleans, causing foul odors to drift onto neigbor B's property -- I don't recall ever seeing nuisance law applied to something that's not real property-based, like the trucks you're describing here. But since they're targeting your neighborhood, one could say that they really are a "fixture" in your community.

Other random thoughts:

Since they're targeting and injuring children, call CPS (?!?)

Are the trucks in compliance with the vehicle code? Your city's restrictions on advertising/billboards? As I read the consent decree, the cops are only enjoined from ticketing certain individuals. Can you be sure that it's always one of those individuals who's driving the truck?

HTH

[Code Name Mama]

Originally Posted by Ironica

I think that, if the media hit the angle that these people are hurting children to make their point, it will erode an awful lot of their ability to get support. It will completely break them from the more "mainstream" elements of the same cause, and will give the cause in general a negative hit. They may not agree... they may like being famous too much to care what damage they do to national opinion on the matter. But at some point, if they do enough damage to the cause overall, SOMEONE on "their side" will tell them to cut it out.

It seems they've thought of a response to this argument


I guess the problem with an IIED suit is that while it may help the OP's troubles, it does nothing to stop the trucks from cruising down any other street (until of course, the next plaintiff proves severe emotional distress). Very frustrating.

[fek&fuzz]

maybe look into getting an ordinance against "cruising" put in place. Basically outlawing driving through neighborhoods like that with no purpose.

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/cruising/3

[Treasuremapper]

I agree about giving them media exposure. I googled the organization and that is what they want. They obviously UAUAUA. I think that sort of thing is appropriate for adults, but if the images are anything like the video on their website, I would be totally freaked.

So -- now that I realize what they are and what their goals are, I agree, if you contact the national media it will only encourage them to engage in such campaigns in the future.

[tanyam926]

I can see the pps points about media attention just furthering their cause, but wouldn't it also put pressure on politicians to help and/or connect them w/ a good lawyer to fight it in court maybe for free (for their own publicity)?

It seems like the only other option is to lay down and continue taking it. They aren't going to stop so I would probably do whatever it took to try and stop them.

[Teensy]

I was going to suggest a cruising ordinance also. Would your town council be willing to pass such an ordinance? If so, that could at least minimize the number of times the truck could be driven down your street.

I would find several examples of such town ordinances (simply google "cruising prohibited" to find various laws), then contact each town council memember and ask them if they would propose and vote for such an ordinance.

Good luck.

[Mamafreya]

I think the cruising thing is a good idea but I don't know if any ordinances will work though because of the court order. Who would enforce it?? The police can't do anything to him so I don't think it would be a deterrent.

Theoretica, I hope that your meeting is productive today. Let us know how it goes.

[Ironica]

West Hollywood, California has cruising ordinances on Sunset Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard. Also, the city government is EXTREMELY progressive, and would probably be happy to talk to someone, provide documentation of the process, etc.

I was also thinking about ordinances that municipalities have attempted to pass to specifically prohibit driving around for the sake of advertising. The rationale is that it's an increase in traffic and pollution without serving any transportation purpose. I'm not sure if any have been successfully passed and enforced yet.

Also, I haven't read the consent decree, but if it's specifically with the local police department, you might want to look into county or state-level law enforcement. I know that here, while the County sheriffs generally respect that the LAPD has jurisdiction within the City of Los Angeles and don't want to step on their toes, they do *legally* have the right to enforce the law within the city. They also are contracted to provide law enforcement to some incorporated cities that don't operate their own police department, so they do enforce regulations that aren't strictly County-based. Similarly, the Highway Patrol is a state law enforcement entity, but definitely operates within cities and counties. In that way, you might be able to get the law involved on your side.

(I'm actually not going to follow any links provided... because I'm honestly afraid to. I don't want to see any of this, or hear any of it. I'm glad they haven't decided to target our neighborhood. I hope they never do.)