cannabisnews.com: High Court Upholds Chicago Park-Use Permit 





High Court Upholds Chicago Park-Use Permit 
Posted by FoM on January 15, 2002 at 21:26:33 PT
By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post
A unanimous Supreme Court yesterday upheld Chicago's rules for deciding whether to grant permits to demonstrators seeking access to public parks, a decision that shores up the authority of local governments to regulate political demonstrations in public places.The court ruled that the city's 13-point guidelines, which include a requirement that groups of more than 50 people prove they have insurance to cover potential damage caused by an event, did not unconstitutionally impede free speech, because they applied equally to all groups, regardless of viewpoint, and were necessary to ensure proper usage of a limited municipal asset.
"The licensing scheme at issue here is not subject-matter censorship but content-neutral time, place and manner regulation of the use of a public forum," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. "The picnicker and soccer player, no less than the political activist or parade marshal, must apply for a permit if the 50-person limit is to be exceeded.""This firms up where we say we've always been," said Lani Williams, associate counsel of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, which submitted a friend-of-the court brief in support of Chicago.The case, Thomas v. Chicago Park District, No. 00-1249, arose out of a clash between the Chicago Park District authorities and members of the Windy City Hemp Development Board, who have repeatedly applied for permits to demonstrate in Chicago parks in favor of legalized marijuana, sometimes receiving approval, sometimes not.The demonstrators launched a broad challenge to the rules, arguing that they amounted to a prior restraint on free expression. The demonstrators also said the rules do not offer applicants seeking to overturn a permit denial sufficiently rapid access to the courts.Chicago's rules, the demonstrators said, were like state movie-censorship rules, which the court had limited in a 1965 case. In that case, the court held that a theater seeking to show a particular film was entitled to prompt judicial review of any proposed state ban.Under the Chicago rules, it may take as long as 28 days for the authorities to act on a permit request, after which there is an opportunity to appeal directly to the general superintendent of the Park District. Only after that proceeding, which can take up to 14 days, may permit-seekers go to court.This was potentially the most far-reaching issue in the case, since lower courts have reached different conclusions as to how swift access to the courts must be to satisfy the Supreme Court's 1965 ruling.But the justices sidestepped it, deciding the fact that Chicago's rules applied to all groups, regardless of ideology, meant that this case, unlike the movie censorship matter, was not an instance in which officials were attempting to control the content of public discourse, either directly or by giving authorities so much latitude that they may favor certain groups over others when granting permits.Separately, the court ruled unanimously that a Border Patrol agent acted within the Constitution when he stopped and searched a minivan driver near the Arizona-Mexico border, partly because the driver's behavior and that of children riding in the back seat aroused the agent's suspicion that drugs were being smuggled in the minivan.The agent, Clinton Stoddard, acted reasonably, the court held, because even conduct that might be considered innocent in other circumstances understandably struck him as suspicious given his training and experience along the dusty smuggling trails of the Southwest."Stoddard was entitled to make an assessment of the situation in light of his specialized training and familiarity with the customs of the area's inhabitants," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.The court thus sided strongly with law enforcement in a case that yesterday's opinion described as "importan[t] to the enforcement of the nation's drug and immigration laws."On an afternoon in January 1998, Stoddard observed the minivan driving along a little-used road in a manner that suggested it might be trying to avoid Border Patrol checkpoints. Also, he noticed that children sitting in back had their legs propped up on what appeared to be large overstuffed bags. He said they waved at him in what looked to him like a staged effort to seem friendly.Upon inspection of the car, Stoddard found almost 129 pounds of marijuana, and the car's driver, Ralph Arvizu, was charged with drug trafficking. Arvizu argued that the marijuana should not be admitted as evidence, because the officer did not have an objectively reasonable basis to stop him.The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with Arvizu, holding that otherwise innocent behavior, such as the children's waving, may not sustain an officer's inference that wrongdoing is afoot.But the justices sharply rebuked the 9th Circuit yesterday, saying its ruling wrongly tried to separate the behavior Stoddard observed from the context in which he observed it.The case is U.S. v. Arvizu, No. 00-1519.Note: Justices Also Side With Law Enforcement on Criteria for Search. Complete Title: High Court Upholds Chicago Park-Use Permit Regulations Source: Washington Post (DC)Author: Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff WriterPublished: Wednesday, January 16, 2002; Page A04 Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com Related Articles:Supreme Court Gives Power To Deny Permitshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11767.shtmlHigh Court Clarifies Border Powershttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11765.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by DdC on January 19, 2002 at 00:47:35 PT
Ashcraft Borrowing More Liberty SOS Different Day
Farben's Bushit Circus
http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/politics/media/39/39401.gif
Farben's Bushit Circus Still In Town
http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/message.shtml?1x39400
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment