Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1A Courts Notes
REVISED 2017
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment
O'Grady v. Superior Court
139 Cal. App. 4th 1423, 2006 WL 1452685 (Cal. App. , 6th Dist., May 26, 2006)
Apple Barred From Obtaining Source Of Blog's Article
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
!1st A Cases
Take to court and use the following court decisions and collect.
Marbury vs Madison (1803),
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html
Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesn t get the commission.
See Ex Parte McCardle for a constitutional law case brief holding that that the
Constitution gives Congress the express power to make exceptions to the Supreme
Court s appellate jurisdiction.
Bryer s v United States 273 U.S. 28.,
--0r-Byars v. United States - 273 U.S. 28 (1927)
Dejammer v hoskill of Albany, ??? (UNKN)
Erie Railroad v Thompkins,
7A Trial by jury.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (Supreme Court trumps everything el
se) ,
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262,
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962):
If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a f
ee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impuni
ty.
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S.
was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a fundamental "right to tr
avel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution does not mention the right to trave
l, it is implied by the other rights given in the Constitution. (Although the ri
ght was recognized under the Equal Protection clause in this case, pre-Fourteent
h Amendment, the right to travel was understood as protected by the Privileges a
nd Immunities Clause (Article IV), as a privilege of citizenship, and therefore
might have been applied to the states under the Privileges or Immunities Clause
of Amendment XIV, as J. Stewart wanted.)
COURT CASES:
1876 SCOTUS - United States v. Cruikshank (1876);
was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitut
ional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Right
s to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
1937 SCOTUS - De Jonge v. Oregon (1937);
Holding
-- The Oregon statute as applied to the particular charge as defined by the stat
e court is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceed
ings not inconsistent with this opinion.
-- held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to freedom of
assembly.
The Court found that Dirk De Jonge had the right to organize a Communist Party
and to speak at its meetings, even though the party advocated industrial or poli
tical change in revolution. However, in the 1950s with the fear of communism on
the rise the Court ruled in Dennis v. United States (1951) that Eugene Dennis, w
ho was the leader of the Communist Party, violated the Smith Act by advocating t
he forcible overthrow of the
United States government.
1939 SCOTUS - HAGUE V CIO 1939;
Holding
-- The Court held that Hague's ban on political meetings violated the First Amen
peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute, found by the Court
of Appeals to be unconstitutional because overbroad, held violative of the Equa
l Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it makes an impermissible
distinction between peaceful labor picketing and other peaceful picketing.
Pp. 94-102.
1972 SCOTUS - Grayned v. Rockford (1972);
- When is picketing constitutionally protected?
Picketing is normally a peaceful carrying of signs and banners clearly
advertising a grievance or the purpose of a demonstration. It is a
recognized means of communication.
-- That the anti-picketing ordinance was overbroad and was therefore invalid; th
at the antinoise ordinance, which prohibited only noise that took place near a p
ublic school and might disrupt school activity, was valid; and that therefore Gr
ayned's conviction under the anti-picketing ordinance was reversed while his con
viction under the antinoise ordinance was upheld.
-- RELATED CASES:
- - Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940).
- - Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963).
- - Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).
- - Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
- - Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997).
1984 SCOTUS - Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984);
-- Holding
A rule against camping or overnight sleeping in public parks is not beyond the c
onstitutional power of the Government to enforce
2000 SCOTUS - Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000);
-- police interactions based on anonymous tip, absent observing a crime.
-- Holding
A police officer may not legally stop and frisk anyone based solely on an
anonymous tip that simply described that person's location and appearance witho
ut information as to any illegal conduct that the person might be planning.
2003 CA 3RD APPEALS COURT - Sanctity of Human Life v. CHP (2003);
(keywords: overpass, impede, )
(Vehicle Code sections 2410, 21465 and 21467)
-- We find that the statutes, Vehicle Code sections 21465 and 21467, under which
the CHP claimed the power to terminate plaintiffs' activities, do not apply to
plaintiffs' activities. However, we also conclude the CHP, under the facts prese
nted at trial, acted appropriately pursuant to its authority to direct traffic.(
See Veh.Code, 2410.) We further conclude that the CHP's actions in this case did
not violate plaintiffs' free speech rights. Accordingly, we modify the trial cou
rt's judgment to grant to plaintiffs declaratory relief only to the extent of de
claring that the CHP may not interfere with plaintiffs' activities under the aut
hority of Vehicle Code sections 21465 and 21467 and otherwise affirm the judgmen
t. (Hereafter, unspecified code citations are to the Vehicle Code.)
-- Plaintiffs' signs cannot be characterized as traffic signs subject to
prohibition under section 21465.
--- They did not purport to be traffic signs.
--- They did not imitate or resemble traffic signs.
--- The signs did not attempt to direct the movement of traffic or hide from vie
w any traffic sign.
--- The CHP, relying only on sections 21465 and 21467, cannot prevent plaintiffs
from displaying the signs.
-- Plaintiffs have presented an actual controversy concerning whether the CHP ma
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1995 Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F. 3d 436 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 19
95
This case arises from the alleged interference by police officers of the City of
Seattle with Jerry Edmon Fordyce's attempt on August 5, 1990 to videotape a publ
ic protest march. ? Fordyce, who apparently considered himself part of the prote
st, had volunteered to videotape the demonstration for local television productio
n, presumably for broadcast on a public access channel. ? Among his subjects were
the activities of the police officers assigned to work the event. ? Not surpris
ingly, the police themselves became targets of the protest and were subjected to
rude and profane insults. ? Generally, the police reacted to this treatment in
a calm and professional manner, but the record suggests that some of these offic
ers were not pleased with Fordyce's actions, and that one officer in particular
attempted physically to dissuade Fordyce from his mission. ? At the end of the d
ay, in a separate incident, a different officer arrested Fordyce when he attempt
ed to videotape some sidewalk bystanders against their wishes. ? Fordyce was cha
rged with violating a Washington State privacy statute, Wash.Rev.Code ?9.73.030,
which forbids the recording of private conversations without the consent of all
participants.1?Fordyce spent the night in jail. ? On October 1, 1990, the charges
against Fordyce were dismissed on motion of the prosecuting attorney.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054985.html
2005 Porat v. LINCOLN TOWERS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Dist. Court, SD New York 200
5
In his ten-count Complaint, Plaintiff advances four federal claims. Pursuant to 4
2 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff alleges: (1) malicious prosecution in violation of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) false arrest and false imprisonment in viol
ation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) retaliation in response to a p
rotected exercise of First Amendment rights; and (4) conspiracy to violate the F
irst, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.[1]The Private Defendants presently move t
o dismiss the first four claims, the purported federal claims, and Plaintiff's t
enth claim, the declaratory judgment claim.
2006 Pomykacz v. Borough of West Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 - Dist. Court, D.
2012 Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dept., et al., No. 1:11-cv-02888 (D. Md.)
The lawsuit details how Sharp was detained and harangued by police officers afte
r he recorded the police incident, with the officers demanding that he surrender
his cellphone as "evidence". Sharp politely declined, but police continued to d
emand that he give up his phone. Fearing arrest, he finally handed over the phon
e to an officer. The police then destroyed the beating videos and all other vide
os it contained - about two dozen in all - before returning the phone to Sharp.
http://www.aclu-md.org/our_work/legal_cases/1
2013 GARCIA V. MONTGOMERY COUNTY 8:12-cv-03592-JFM
In 2011, photojournalist Mannie Garcia witnessed an excessive force arrest by tw
o officers and began photographing the scene. Mr. Garcia did not interfere with
police activity and even identified himself as a member of the press to one of t
he on scene officers. After Mr. Garcia identified himself and his belongings, Off
icer Malouf arrested Mr. Garcia and placed him in a chokehold, forcibly dragging
him along the ground to the police cruiser. Officer Malouf handcuffed Mr. Garci
a, confiscated his camera, and kicked Mr. Garcia to the ground. Officer Malouf al
so threatened Mr. Garcia s wife with arrest if she approached. After his arrest, Of
ficer Malouf failed to inform Mr. Garcia of his Miranda rights or his charged of
fense. Further, Officer Malouf confiscated physical evidence of his abuse and boo
ked Mr. Garcia for disorderly conduct. When the police released Mr. Garcia from
booking, he did not receive his video card back. At his subsequent trial, a jury
acquitted Mr. Garcia of the disorderly conduct charge.
After being acquitted, Mr. Garcia initiated a civil suit against the police depa
rtment and city alleging that Officer Malouf fabricated the disorderly conduct c
harge and that the officers onsite failed to follow police policy on media relat
ions. Mr. Garcia s complaint sought relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of h
is First and Fourth Amendment Rights. https://ducrimlawrev.wordpress.com/2014/09
/03/garcia_v-_montcty/
2014 gericke v weare 12-2326P-01A
Gericke was not brought to trial. She subsequently sued the Town of Weare, its p
olice department, and the officers who arrested and charged her, alleging in per
tinent part that the wiretapping charge constituted retaliatory prosecution in v
iolation of her First Amendment rights.