William Thomas, et. al. | C.A. No. 94-2742 Plaintiffs pro se, | Judge Charles R. Richey | v. | | The United States, et. al. | Defendants. |
feet in width, and one-quarter inch in thickness, and may extend no higher than six feet in height from the ground at their highest point, in any arrangement or combination. 36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5) (x) (B)(2). The undisputed arrangement of plaintiffs' flags in this action violated that regulation because plaintiffs' flags extended well above the six-feet height limitation, and the defendant officers acted reasonably in enforcing the regulations to plaintiffs flags. Therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
prompted by improper motive. Instead, these facts are clear that the defendants acted reasonably in enforcing the valid laws and regulations concerning activities and demonstrations in Lafayette Park.
Park Police officers are arbitrarily and "without probable cause" enforcing against them certain of the regulations governing demonstrators in Lafayette Park. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against such arbitrary enforcement or threats of enforcement, as well as an injunction prohibiting the Park Service from assigning certain officers to duty in Lafayette Park. Amended Complaint, p. 2.
enforcement violated anyclearly established rights of plaintiffs, or was otherwise unreasonable or motivated by improper purpose.[4] memorandum will illustrate in detail below, plaintiffs did not have a clearly established right to display the flags in the manner in which they were being displayed, and the officers acted reasonably and well within the bounds of the regulations in seeking the removal of the over-sized portion of plaintiffs' display.
of the flags. This contention either misconstrues or misunderstands the terms of the permit. As set forth in more detail below, Ms. Picciotto's permit explicitly requires the permittee to abide by all other resulations applicable to park demonstrations. Therefore, although Ms. Picciotto had a permit which authorized her to display two signs and two flags, that permit did not authorize her to display her flags in a manner otherwise prohibited by regulations. Thus, even with a permit, the sign-size regulations remained applicable to Ms. Picciotto's flags, and the Park Police Officers acted reasonably and within the law in seeking to have plaintiffs remove the flags from the park.
for stationary signs in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(g)(5)(x)(B) (2). This regulation limits the height of any sign displayed in Lafayette park to a maximum of 6 feet above the ground.6 Particularly relevant to this action, the regulation prohibits the arransement or combination of signs so as to exceed the maximum 6 feet height.
5, 1986).[8]
Letter from Randolph Myers, Attorney, National Capital Parks, dated January 20, 1995 attached to Defendants' Reply at Exhibit 1 (R. 65); Letter from Richard G. Robbins, Assistant Solicitor, Department of Interior, in Plaintiff's Notice to the Court at R. 62. Thus, the officers' reasonable conduct, consistent with the agency's regulations and within the scope of their duties, entitles them to the protection of qua lified immunity, and this action should be dismissed against them in their individual capacities. See e.s., Anderson v. Creishton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, (1987); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140 (1979); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 239 (1979); Siesert v. Gillev, 895 F.2d 797 (D.C. Cir. 1990).