Pubdate: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Charles Lane

HIGH COURT UPHOLDS CHICAGO PARK-USE PERMIT REGULATIONS

Justices Also Side With Law Enforcement on Criteria for Search

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh