Defendant is in receipt of the State’s Response to his Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Modification of Conditions of Release. For some unknown reasons, the Government seems to believe the First Amendment does not apply to park officials. This argument is frivolous, and the attorney making it should be reported to the Bar Association by the Court.[1] In its Response, the State claims that: (1) the First Amendment does not protect statements directed at park officials because they are not “police”; (2) the application of the statutes to Defendant is permissible because “it was applied to Defendant’s mode of expression and behavior”; and (3) there is no authority for Defendant’s argument that his “words were protected by the First Amendment for the facts of this case.” We must first deal with the State’s allegation that “Defendant admitted” to police that he followed the Park officials around the park. Defendant did no such thing, as that would have been a lie. Defendant took the cardboard from the Park official while standing on the sidewalk; asked the official repeatedly for his name and employee information while standing on the sidewalk; discussed the issue with the City Manager’s Office and Tucson Parks and Recreation Administration via cell-phone while standing on the sidewalk; discussed the issue with police while standing on the sidewalk; and was arrested while standing on the sidewalk. The claim that Defendant was ever in the park is utterly false, and video evidence already submitted to the Court clearly demonstrates that no such thing occurred. The entire discussion between the Tucson Police and Defendant was recorded by Jon McLane, and as stated in Defendant’s Disclosure Statement, can be found and viewed in the public domain at the YouTube address https://youtube/watch?v=TpNB-LxyXak (Safe Park organizer arrested for protecting property of homeless man). At no point in the discussion did Defendant ever state that he was in the park; indeed, all Defendant discussed was the fact that the Park official was refusing to give his name and employee information to a member of the public for complaint purposes—an issue the State and the police failed to mention in their reports and documents filed with this Court.
Posted on: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:34:02 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015