United States Department of the
Office Of The Solicitor
Washington, DC 20240
April 2, 1999
Mr. William Thomas
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
Dear Mr. Thomas:
This responds to your letter
dated March 1, 1999 regarding a recent inspection by the United
States Park Police of two demonstration sites maintained by you,
your wife and Ms. Conception Picciotto in Lafayette Park. After
review, we believe that the officers acted properly under 36 C.F.R.
§ 2.32(2), when they asked to look under plastic tarps which
had obscured the sites to ensure regulatory compliance. Further,
insofar as the officers observed violation of park service regulations
governing signage and the storage of property in Lafayette park,
we ask for your immediate compliance.
As you know, both the National Park Service's regulations
and the Park Police's monitoring and enforomment of the regulations
have been consistently upheld as constitutional See, Clark
v. Community for Creative Non-Violence. 468 U.s. 288 (1984);
Thomas v. United States, 696 F.Supp. 702 (D.D.C. 198B);
United States v. Thomas, 864 F.2d 1B8 (D.C.Cir. l988):
United States v. Picciotto, 875 F.2d 345 (D.C.Cir. 19B9);
Thomas v. Lujan, 791 F. supp. 321 (1991), summary aff'd,
1993 U.s. App. LEXIS 4902 (D.C. Cir. January 29, 1993), reh'g
en banc denied, (D.C. Cir. March 23, 1993); Huddle v. Reagan,
NO. 88-3130, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 7070 (D.D.C. May 24, 1991),
aff'd w/o opinion, 968 F.2d 92 (D.C.Cir. 19921. cert.
denied, 508 U.S. 931 (1993); Thomas v. Lujan, 791 F.Supp.
321 (D.D.C. 1991, summary aff'd 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4902)(D.C.Cir.
January 29, 1993). Thomas v. United States, NO. 94-2747
(D.D.C. August 25, 1995), summary aff'd No. 95-5348, 1997
U.S.App.LEXIS 16344 (D.C. Cir. May 5. 1997); Thomas v. United
States, No. 95-l018 (D.D.C. Ausust 31, 1995), summary aff'd
No. 95-6338, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10791 (D.C.Cir. March 6, 1996)
Randolph J Myers
Acting Assistant Solicitor
National Capital Parks