See also Declaration of Robert Durrough, ¶¶ 31-33 concerning Mr. Thomas and his associates being held in a hot paddy wagon,  Mr, Manning in his affidavit, paragraph 5, furnished a similar description of the alleged slow processing and the failure of the Park Police to furnish the demonstrators water while in the hot paddywagon.
of the facts, his protest signs were "destroyed beyond repair" by USPP officials and tossed into a dumpster several days after his arrest by Officer Haynes on June 6, 1984. See Second Declaration of William Thomas, at ¶ 91. See also Declaration of William Thomas of August 27, 1986, at ¶ 15. More troubling, however, are the statements made by Mr. Robert Dorrough that plaintiff's signs were "broken up with sledgehammers by Park Service employees under the supervision of Park Police" on June 23, 1984. See Declaration of Robert Dorrough, filed September 22, 1986, at ¶¶ 34-37. Mrs. Ellen Thomas in her declaration states that William Thomas and she obtained a ride from a friend and went out to the property office, "where we found several of our signs and much of our literature tossed into two dumpsters." She also related that their mobile speaker's platform, under NPS permit since May, 1984 had been totallydestroyed and was in paint-splattered pieces in the dumpster. (Declaration, ¶ 51). Defendants have offered no explanation for this conduct except that these signs were lawfully seized incident to plaintiff's arrest.
appendices to this Report and Recommendation.
conduct, See also discussion of Rizzo in Popow v. City of Margate, 476 F. Supp. 1237, 1245 (D. N. J. 1979). The Magistrate has considered whether isolated and independent alleged acts of law enforcement officers' misconduct can create a constitutional or a civil rights case. The Magistrate concludes not. But if there is a pattern of such acts affirmatively linked together, then a different situation is presented, and a plaintiff may be able to establish a basis for declaratory and injunctive relief. If police officers of a local municipality can engage in a course of police misconduct which would Warrant such relief against a city or other municipality under section 1983, it would appear that similar relief could be granted against the United States or the head of a governmental agency, such as the Secretary of Interior for the same type of conduct by the United States Park Service officers if, in fact, established at trial as a violation of constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and/or the Fifth Amendments.  While the action may not properly be one under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against a federal agency or against federal officials, for established constitutional violations under the U. S, Constitution, the federal courts can grant declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future violations. 
With these principles in mind and under the dictum enunciated in Rizzo, on this record, the Magistrate concludes the incidents referred to above raise factual issues requiring trial as to whether there was the adoption of a plan or policy, express or implied, showing Department of Interior and the U. S. Park Police officials' authorization or approval of police misconduct, if these acts, in fact, occurred, or whether they were isolated, totally unconnected incidents. The Magistrate is constrained to conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to attempt to establish constitutional violations by individual U. S, Park Police officers, and by any Secret Service officers acting in concert therewith, and whether these incidents constituted a pattern, and thus there was a casual link between them sufficient for the trier of fact to find a conspiracy ar concert of action to harass William Thomas to force him to give up his vigil against nuclear weapons and to rid the White House sidewalk and Lafayette Park of him and his associates and what some might perceive as unsightly and gaudy signs in an unlawful interference with his exercise of First Amendment rights, and in the process, also violative of his Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful arrest of his person and seizure of his personal property and of his Fifth Amendment rights not to be deprived of his property without due process of law.
associates, affidavits such as the ones by Larry Tucker and David Manning, and other facts proffered by Mr. Thomas and persons who presumably will be witnesses in his behalf at trial.