U.S. v. Sunrise

USDC Cr. No. 84-235

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                                                
                                         FILED MAR 10 1989
                                    CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA               District of Columbia       

      V.                                 Criminal No. 88-235-LFO

STEPHEN SEMPLE,
           Defendant.

ORDER

Defendant was convicted of violating a Park Service regulation prohibiting "camping" in Lafayette Park and sentenced to serve 30 days in the custody of the United States Attorney General. He was ordered to surrender himself voluntarily on or before March 17, 1989. On February 22, 1989, defendant filed a motion to spend imposition of sentence pending appeal. The government has not filed a timely opposition to the motion.

Defendant represented himself in this matter and attended all scheduled hearings and status conferences. He has been engaged In an ongoing vigil "in Lafayette Park and has not heretofore demonstrated any desire to cease his demonstration or leave the Washington, D.C. area. He has not been convicted of any violent crimes, nor can his convictions in this and related cases be deemed to raise any questions about the safety of the community should he be released. Accordingly, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant is not likely to

1

flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) or (c).

Furthermore, defendant has raised a substantial question of law in this case involving the delicate balance between the Park Service's interest in preserving national park areas and defendant's rights under the First Amendment. There is no showing on the current record that defendant has appealed for the purposE of delay, and there is no reason why defendant should have to serve his sentence prior to a ruling by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, were defendant's motion denied and the sentence imposed, the sentence would likely be completed before the appeal could be decided, perhaps rendering that appeal moot.

Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 9 3143!b), it is this 10th day of March, 1989, hereby

ORDERED: that Defendant's Motion to Suspend Imposition of Sentence Pending the appeal should be, and is hereby, GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED: that this Order should be personally served on defendant by the United States Marshals Service
(signed) Louis f. Oberdorfer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE