UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA   )      Criminal No. 87-0157
                           )   
     v.                    )           FILED
                           )       JUN 17 1987
CARL MUSSER                )   Clerk U.S. District Court
___________________________)       District of Columbia

ORDER

Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss. Upon consideration ofthe relevant case law and the record in this case, the Corut denies defendant's motion.

I. REQUIRING DEMONSTRATORS TO BE WITHIN THREE FEET OF THEIR SIGNS DOES NOT VIOATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Defendant argues that the rgulation he is charged with violating, which requires protestors in Lafayette Park to be within three feet of their signs, 36 C.F.R. 7.96(g)(5)(x)(B)(2), is unconstitional on its face and is applied. Defendant contends that hte regulation is unconstitutional as applied because he was only "one minute" from the sign and, thus, was "attending" his sign within the "spirit" of the regulation. Essentially, defendant is arguing that he did not violate the regulation, which is a question for the fac finder to determine. Thus, there is no factual or legal basis for finding that the regulation was unconstitutionally applied.

The regulation at issue is also constitutional on its face. It is well settled that

[e]xpression ... is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restricions ... provided tat they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated

1

speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293-94 (1984)(citations omitted). The regulation at issue merely requires demonstrators to remain within three feet of their signs. The three foot rule is content neutral and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. The rule is also narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests. The rule protects the aesthetics of Lafayette Park by prohibiting persons from abandoning or not attending their signs. Clark, 468 U.S. at 296. The rule is also tailored to serve the substantial interest in the security of the White House, high government officials and the public. See White House Vigil v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, because the three foot rule is content neutral, leaves open ample alternatives for communication, and is narrowly tailored to serve substantial governmental interests, the Corut finds that the regulation is constitutional on its face.

II. CONSLUSION

For the abov stated reasons, it is, by the Court, this 17th day of June, 1987,

ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss be and hereby is denied.

Charles R. Richey
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE