# Appendix — City of Louisville v. Glasson

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_1547%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1975
- **Citation:** 423 U.S. 930

## Text

POEL DAR 6 EK, Sy

27

APPENDIX A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

No. 6999

Mansons Guamsow = wt ltl Plaintiff

Vv.

Crry or Lovutsvittr, Frank W. Burke, GrorcE
Burton, Cot. C. J. Hypr, Lr. Exmer Jonn-
son, and ParroLMaN WaLter Mepiey - Defendants

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Upon joint motion of the parties and their respective
counsel, the above entitled action came on for trial before
the Court, Honorable James F. Gordon, United States Dis-
trict Judge, presiding, without a jury, the plaintiff appear-
ing in person and by her attorneys, Philip L. Grauman and
Thomas L. Hogan; and the defendants appearing in person
and by their attorneys, Frank A. Logan and Herbert Van
Arsdale, and testimony having been offered and arguments
of counsel made, and the Court having been duly advised,
now makes and files its findings of fact and conclusions of
law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The defendant, Frank W. Burke, was Mayor of the City
of Louisville; George Burton was the Director of Safety;
and the defendants Colonel C. J. Hyde, Lt. Elmer Johnson

28

(then Sergeant) and Patrolman Walter Medley were mem-
bers of the Police Force of the City of Louisville at the
time the acts were alleged to have occurred in the complaint.
Though there is, of course, considerable conflict in the
evidence, we find that on the occasion of President Nixon’s
visit to the City of Louisville, Kentucky, on July 14, 1970,
the plaintiff, Marjorie Glasson, a white woman, was stand-
ing at Fourth and Guthrie Streets with a placard bearing a
message prepared by her, to be read by President Nixon as
he passed in his motoreade on that date and occasion.

The plaintiff testified that the message contained on the
sign was “Lead us to hate and kill poverty, disease and
ignorance, not each other.” The defendants, Sgt. Johnson
and Patrolman Medley, testified that the message contained
the word “murderer” at the top of the sign in larger and
bolder letters.

The defendants, Sgt. Johnson and Patrolman Medley,
were assigned to duty to secure the safety and protection
of the President. Their area of patrol covered Fourth
Street at Guthrie. It was their duty to observe the people,
to be alert for any activity within the crowd which would
create a disturbance or cause confusion or such conduct
that could interfere with the progress of the motorcade,
which could jeopardize the safety of the President, or other-
wise be hazardous to others in the crowd composed of
onlookers.

As President Nixon’s motorcade approached the area
adjacent to the point at which the plaintiff was standing,
Fourth and Guthrie Streets, Patrolman Medley noticed a
commotion in the crowd across the street and persons
pointing and calling across the street directing attention to
the sign being held by the plaintiff, Marjorie Glasson.
Patrolman Medley, after reading the sign, crossed the
street and after a discussion with Sgt. Johnson concerning
the contents of the message, it was determined by them
that the message was inflamatory and it was creating rancor

P
te ekerrnrecmanaannensn

29

and resentment in the crowd which could impede the
progress of the motorcade and jeopardize the safety of the
President, other members of the motorcade and the on-
lookers in the crowd.

Sgt. Johnson directed Patrolman Medley to go to the
plaintiff and ask her to take the sign down, and, if she
would not voluntarily do so, he was to take it from her
which would eliminate the hazard. Patrolman Medley
approached the plaintiff and asked her to take the sign
down and, upon her refusal to do so, he took it from her
and destroyed it.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the sub-
ject matter of this action; i.e., 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985.

As to the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, the defendants Johnson
and Medley acted in good faith and upon reasonable
grounds, and their decision and action in removing the sign
from the plaintiff and destroying it were within the ambit
of permissible discretion as it appeared at the time. Pierson
v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547; Notaras v. Ramon, 383 F. 2d 403.

As to the 42 U.S.C. 1985 claim, we find no evidence of
“elass based invidious discriminatory animus” as required
to be an element in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88.

The plaintiff shall take nothing by the complaint, and
the defendants shall have judgment for their costs and dis-
bursements herein expended, and judgment shall be entered
accordingly.

March 28, 1973
(s) James F. Gordon
United States District Judge
Copies to:
Counsel of record.

ht Ss Co i eee. eC er th ee eee i
-

30

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 73-1509

MargonieGuasson - - - ~- Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Crry or Loutsvitie, Frank W. Burke, Grorce
Burton, Cot. C. J. Hype, Lr. Eumer Jonn-
son, ParrouMan Wauter Mepiey - Defendants-Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE, DIVISION

Decided and Filed June 13, 1975.

Before: Puruups, Chief Judge, McCrer, Circuit Judge,
and McAuuister, Senior Circuit Judge.

McCrexr, Circuit Judge. On July 14, 1970, in Louisville,
Kentucky, a police officer forcibly took a poster from a
young woman peacefully standing on a public sidewalk and
destroyed it. Although not every encounter between a
citizen and a policeman warrants extended judicial scrutiny
and review, the implications of this apparently incon-
sequential incident raise important questions about the con-
stitutional guaranty of freedom of expression, and require

a thal lat aat 8 Pe he ee Di tal Nie il er eres ies FE RS Ae TL Ty ee HOTS PF AEN PRET ay

31

us to determine the circumstances in which police officers
may be required to respond in damages in an action brought
under the Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), for
abridgement of rights guaranteed by the First and Four-
teenth Amendments,’

The district court, sitting without a jury, determined,
after trial, that appellant could not recover damages under
section 1983 because the police had acted reasonably in
destroying her poster and that she could not recover dam-
ages under section 1985(3) because she had failed to prove
that the destruction of her poster was motivated by an im-
permissible discriminatory animus. We reverse.

On July 14, 1970, the former President of the United
States, Richard M. Nixon, was scheduled to ride in a motor-
cade in Louisville, Kentucky, ‘before attending the Ap-
palachian Governors’ Conference. In anticipation of this
procession, appellant Glasson, a young Caucasian woman,
had prepared to display to the President a poster on which
she had printed, “Lead us to hate and kill poverty, disease
and ignorance, not each other.” By displaying this poster,
she hoped to express to the President and to asyone else
who might read it, her concern about the divisive issues of
American racism and the Vietnam War, and Per wish that
the President would channel the energies of his adminis-
tration to heal the divisions created by these issues, and to
eliminate poverty, disease, and ignorance. These problems
were on the agenda of the Governors’ Conference.

Karly that morning, Louisville police officers to whom
had been assigned the duty of safeguarding the President
during the motorcade by monitoring the crowd and keeping
it orderly, were given their general orders of the day by
Lt. Colonel Edgar Mulligan, Assistant Chief of Police of

‘In the brief that appellant submitted to this court she eon-
ceded that she had no claim against the City of Louisville and
stated that she did not wish to pursue her claims against Frank W.
Burke and George Burton.

eee nee ve ay peepens
PONG APTA ESL PRY TDI AON IOI) TS AONE: / PERN GEISHA 5 CSAP NI HF HOMER TOPE TEMS

32

Louisville. Appellee Colonel Hyde, the Chief of Police, was
also present. Appellees Johnson and Medley, police officers
with approximately 25 years of experience, attended the
meeting and were instructed to destroy any sign or poster
that was “detrimental” or “injurious” to the President of
the United States.

Both Johnson and Medley had previously received in-
struction in crowd control methods and in handling demon-
strations and protests against important public officials.
According to Chief of Police Hyde, “we always planned in
generalities to use whatever force was necessary [to pre-
serve peace] and have faith in the people . . . assigned
out there to exercise their best judgment based upon their
training . . . that [they] heretofore had had regarding
crowd control.” Individuals were to be permitted to demon-
strate peacefully “[a]s long as they didn’t incite others that
might cause trouble . . . .” Should other persons be
incited or provoked by a sign, police officers were directed
to take whatever action was necessary, including the use of
force to maintain or restore order.

It is undisputed that on the day in question, appellant
Glasson was standing peacefully against a building holding
her sign as she awaited the motorcade. Several other per-
sons were also displaying signs and posters, all of which
bore salutations like “Welcome to the President.” Accord-
ing to Johnson and Medley, a group of persons located
across the street from Glasson noticed her poster and were
provoked by it into grumbling and muttering threats. Officer
Medley testified that this group was “hollering” and that
his attention was drawn by this boisterous conduct to ap-
pellant’s poster on which, he testified, was printed in large
letters “Murderer, teach us to hate and kill” and then in
smaller letters “Poverty, ignorance and so forth”, a message
that he determined was detrimental to the President.2 He

2The district court made no finding that the poster contained
the epithet, ‘‘Murderer,’’ even though Officers Medley and Johnson
testified that it did and Miss Glasson testified that it did not.

ERM RE aR RA EE SEIN ore NY aM

PRE LOCO PENI

LENO TI GL Dee MARLAND WINTON BW LAE IIIS he ere

33

then conferred with Officer Johnson and informed him that
the poster was “pretty bad because the crowd across the
street is going to go over and get her—maybe hurt her.”
Officer Johnson agreed that the poster was detrimental to
the President and directed Medley to follow the general
orders given that day—to destroy all signs detrimental to
the President. Officer Medley then approached appellant
and, according to his testimony, asked her “Would you
please take this sign down Lady; it’s detrimental to the
United States of America.” When Miss Glasson refused,
and replied that she had a right to display it, Medley took
it from her and tore it up. The hecklers across the street
cheered and then immediately quieted down and began to
disperse.

At trial, Johnson and Medley testified that the boisterous
group that had spurred them into action consisted of
twenty-five to thirty persons and that there were approxi-
mately seven to twelve police officers stationed on the block
where the demonstrators stood. When asked whether the
police force at hand was sufficient to handle a possible dis-
order in a crowd that size, Officer Johnson responded that
the answer depended upon the number of people who be-
came involved, but that “if it got so bad that we had to have
reinforcements we could have done that also.” Moreover,
even though Johnson testified that the disturbance “was
reaching the stage of a riot,” the record shows that not one
heckler crossed, or even attempted to cross the street, no
reinforcements were ever summoned, and the secret service,
the federal agency assigned the duty of safeguarding the
President, 18 U.S.C. § 3056, was not alerted. Neither officer
told the crowd to quiet down or attempted to calm its mem-
bers except to assure them that the police would take care
of appellant’s poster. When Officer Medley was asked what
he would have done had members of the boisterous group
begun to cross the street, he replied, and Johnson agreed,

RMP SA SUNTI PUM By FRE NBR Mer ne aR aes +
-

34

that no crime would have been committed had they crossed
the street and taken appellant’s poster because it was “in-
flammatory anyway.” <A permissible sign, according to
Medley, was “[a]ny sign welcoming the President,” and, he
observed, that he saw “no other signs with . . . de-
rogatory remarks about the President . . . .” When
Johnson was asked, “If there were a group of school chil-
dren holding a sign saying Welcome, President Nixon, and
twenty-five or thirty people across the street were booing
them and saying that they didn’t like President Nixon and
they were going over to get that sign, would you take that
sign away from those school children, he replied, “No.” He
qualified this answer later in his testimony when he stated
that he would not have taken it unless “trouble engulfed or
started or was created.”

Appellant and a law professor who was standing across
the street from her near the crowd, both testified that they
heard no boisterous heckling but that, on the contrary,
because the motorcade had been delayed, the crowd had
become subdued and bored at the time Medley grabbed the
poster. They also testified that the reaction of the crowd to
the police officer’s action against appellant was mixed—
some persons applauded and cheered while other persons
booed and hissed.

Miss Glasson testified that this was the first time that
she had ever engaged in a political demonstration; that she
was shocked and frightened by Officer Medley’s conduct ; and
that since that time she has been fearful of participating in
any other demonstrations.

As a result of this encounter, she filed this action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky under sections 1983 and 1985(3) of the Civil
Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3). Her complaint
charged that Officers Johnson and Medley, acting under
color of law, deprived her of rights guaranteed by the First

PRAIA TEI NOLIN GAL I SN ATT AMM I PO oD AREY TE ANNETTE Tal JARDENE? Sen eT a eet ee eee

PEPER IMER ISR: 1”

a QTL wy Coyne im,

35

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Con-
stitution, and that they, acting with appellee Hyde, con-
spired to deprive her of the equal protection of the laws
and of equal privileges and immunities under the laws of
the United States. She requested compensatory and puni-
tive damages.

The district court, after trial without a jury, made the
following findings of fact: (1) that before the President’s
motorcade had arrived, a group of persons became angered
by the message on appellant’s poster and began “pointing
and calling across the street . . .%; (2) that Officers
Johnson and Medley determined “that the message was in-
flammatory and [that] it was creating rancor and resent-
ment in the crowd which could impede the progress of the
motorcade and jeopardize the safety of the President, other
members of the motorcade and the onlookers in the crowd ;”
and (3) that Officer Medley asked appellant to take her
poster down and then took it away from her and destroyed
it when she refused to comply with his request. The dis-
trict court determined, as a matter of law, that Officers
Medley and Johnson had not violated section 1983 of the
Civil Rights Acts because they “acted in good faith and
upon reasonable grounds, and their decision and action in
removing the sign from the plaintiff and destroying it were
within the ambit of permissible discretion as it appeared at
the time,” citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967), and
Notaras v. Ramon, 383 F. 2d 403 (9th Cir. 1967). It also
concluded, citing Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88
(1971), that none of the three appellees had violated section
1985(3) of the Civil Rights Act because there was “no evi-
dence” that their action was motivated by a “ ‘class-based
invidious discriminatory animus.’ ”

On appeal it is contended that the district court erred in
holding that the officers acted reasonably and in good faith
in seizing and destroying appellant’s poster, and in deter-
mining that there was no evidence of an impermissible in-

yes Ee PEO STE LIBLT YB

36

vidious discriminatory animus. We agree and reverse. Al-
though generally findings of fact by a trial court must be
accepted by an appellate court unless they are clearly
erroneous, F.R. Civ. P. 52(b), determinations, whether
called ultimate findings or conclusions of law, that attach
legal significance to historical facts may be reversed if upon
examination of the record they are found to be erroneous.
E.g., United States v. Weingarden, 473 F. 2d 454, 460 (6th
Cir. 1973), Guzick v. Drebus, 431 F. 2d 594, 599 (6th Cir.
1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 948 (1971), Ashland Ou €&
Refining Co. v. Kenny Construction Co., 395 F. 2d 683, 684
(6th Cir. 1968), Cordovan Associates, Inc. v. Dayton Rubber
Co., 290 F. 2d 858, 859 (6th Cir. 1961). See Edwards v.
South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235 (1963). We hold that
when Officer Medley destroyed Miss Glasson’s poster, she
was engaged in activity protected by the First and Four-
teenth Amendments; that his action, directed by Officer
Johnson and authorized by Chief of Police Hyde, was un-
reasonable and not taken in good faith; and that it violated
her constitutional rights and was actionable under section
1983 of the Civil Rights Acts. Moreover, since appellees
agreed to destroy all placards that were critical of the
President and offensive to the community, the destruction
of the poster was pursuant to an impermissibly invidious
discrimination remediable under section 1985(3) of the Civil
Rights Acts.

No state may agreeably to the Constitution intercept a
message and remove it from the channels of communica-
tion or punish its dissemination solely because of its content
unless it is obscene, e.g., Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15
(1973), Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), defama-
tory, e.g., New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),
constitutes “fighting words,” e.g., Lewis v. City of New
Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974), Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,
315 U.S. 568 (1942), or substantially and directly imperils

37

national security, see New York Times Co. v. United States,
403 U.S. 713 (1971). Moreover, the Constituttion protects
not only the substance of an expression but also the use of
words selected for their emotive quality even though they
may offend the tastes of the community. F.g., Papish v.
Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S.
667 (1973), Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), Thonen
v. Jenkins, 491 F. 2d 722 (4th Cir. 1973). Inherent in sup-
pressing the use of particular words is the grave risk of
inhibiting the expression of ideas, particularly unpopular
ones.

The message that Miss Glasson sought to communicate
was an expression of her views about important public
questions and policies. This kind of expression is entitled
to the greatest constitutional protection. As the Supreme
Court stated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at
269 :

The general proposition that freedom of expression
upon public questions is secured by the First Amend-
ment has long been settled by our decisions. The con-
stitutional safeguard, we have said, “was fashioned to
assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing
about of political and social changes desired by the
people.”

Accordingly, even if the appellation “Murderer” appeared
on Miss Glasson’s placard, and her message was expressly
critical of the Nixon administration, it was constitutionally
protected. The right of an American citizen to criticize
public officials and policies and to advocate peacefully ideas
for change is “the central meaning of the First Amend-
ment.” Id. at 273. See generally, A. Meiklejohn, Political
Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People (1948),
Kalven, The New York Times Case: A Note on “The Cen-

| ‘3 —— ;, “TRESILIAN TRAE LR LESAN LATING PR ONIN SEN A RAAT AR

38

tral Meaning of the First Amendment,” 1964 Sup. Ct. Rev.
191.

Although the content of a communication may be pro-
tected, the state may, in some circumstances, regulate the
time, place and manner of expressing it. See, e.g., Grayned
v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115-17 (1972). For ex-
ample, it may determine not to permit two parades to pro-
ceed along the same street at the same time, or two rallies
to be held simultaneously in the same part of a public park.
Moreover, the state may in appropriate circumstances pro-
hibit rallies in jail yards, Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39
(1966), in public libraries, see Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S.
131 (1966), and near courthouses, Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S.
559 (1965). See generally, Kalven, The Concept of the
Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1. Yet,
at the same time, our public streets and parks

have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the
public and, time out of mind, have been used for pur-
poses of assembly, communicating thoughts between
citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of
the streets and public places has, from ancient times,
been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and
liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the
United States to use the streets and parks for commun-
ication of views on national questions may be regulated
in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and
must be exercised in subordination to the general com-
fort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and
good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation,
be abridged or denied.

Hague v. CIO, 309 U.S. 496, 515-16 (1939).

In this case, Miss Glasson was in a place where she had
a right to be, at a time that was appropriate, and was con-

EN ESTEE a ees ORNS Ee Ie Oe FEN LS ae EE PNET IE ORIENTA Se PNET Pa TR IO
: eS

39

ducting herself peacefully and lawfully. She, like many
other persons, had taken the opportunity to express her
ideas to the President—from a place designated by the state
for onlookers and in a manner often used by persons who
do not have access to the print or broadeast media.

Moreover, we do not believe that Miss Glasson somehow
forfeited the protection afforded her message by the Consti-
tution becaues it unintentionally evoked a hostile reaction
from others. We reach this conclusion after considering
this case “against the background of a profound national
commitment to the principle that debate on public issues
should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it
may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleas-
antly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 270. The pur-
pose of the First Amendment is to encourage discussion,
and it is intended to protect the expression of unpopular as
well as popular ideas. Accordingly, hostile public reaction
does not cause the forfeiture of the constitutional protection
afforded a speaker’s message so long as the speaker does
not go beyond mere persuasion and advocacy of ideas and
attempts to incite to riot. See, e.g., Gooding v. Wilson, 405
U.S. 518 (1972) ; Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ;
Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U. 8. 195 (1966) ; Edwards v. South
Carolina, supra; Feiner v. New York, 340 USS. 315, 321
(1951).

‘Feiner used a loudspeaker to address an interracial crowd of
seventy-five to eighty persons and urged them to attend a meeting
to discuss racial discrimination. During the course of his exhorta-
tion, he made derogatory remarks about President Truman, the
Marshall Plan, and local officials, and urged the Negroes in the
crowd to ‘‘rise up in arms’’ against white people and ‘*fight for
equal rights.’’ The crowd blocked sidewalks, forcing pedestrians to
walk in the street, and became angry and threatened to attack
Feiner if the police failed to act. The police requested Feiner to
stop speaking three times before arresting him for disorderly con-

(Footnote continued on following page)

40

To permit police officers to prohibit the expression of
ideas which they believe to be “detrimental” or “injurious”
to the President of the United States or to punish for incite-
ment or breach of the peace the peaceful communication of
such messages because other prsons ar provoked and seek
to take violent action against the speaker would subvert the
First Amendment, and would incorporate into that constitu-
tional guarantee a “heckler’s veto’* which would empower
an audience to cut off the expression of a speaker with whom
it disagreed. The state may not rely on community hostility
and threats of violence to justify censorship.

The record before us demonstrates that Miss Glasson, in
displaying her placard which contained a constitutionally
protected message, in a peaceful manner, from an appro-
priate place, was engaged in activity protected by the First
Amendment and that its destruction by Louisville police
officers Johnson and Medley deprived her of that right.
She thus made out a prima facie case for damages under
section 1983. This section of the Civil Rights Act provides,
in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, regula-
tion, custom or usage of any State . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States

to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

cuct. In upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court determined
that the police ‘‘in making the arrest were motivated solely by a
proper concern for the preservation of order and protection of the
general welfare, and that there was no evidence which could lend
color to a claim that the acts of the police were a cover for sup-
pression of petitioner’s views and opinions.’’ Id. at 319.

For over twenty years the Supreme Court has confined the rule
in Feiner to a situation where the speaker in urging his opinion
upon an audience intends to incite it to take action that the state
has a right to prevent.

‘For a discussion of the concept of a ‘‘heckler’s veto’’, see
generally, H. Kalven, The Negro and the First Amendment, 140-60
(1966).

LGR OPED LIEN L I TEN ETE A RO ASEM INS ORT A 88s LIN LAN HG EA sat PEE ALA La 7s ree SAE en

41

immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law,
suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

This statute imposes on the states and their agents cer-
tain obligations and responsibilities. A police officer has
the duty not to ratify and effectuate a heckler’s veto nor
may he join a moiling mob intent on suppressing ideas. In-
stead, he must take reasonable action to protect from vio-
lence persons exercising their constitutional rights. E.g.,
Sellers v. Johnson, 163 F. 2d 877 (8th Cir. 1947), Cotton-
reader v. Johnson, 252 F. Supp. 492 (M.D. Ala. 1966). And,
in the absence of a speaker’s exhortation to violence in care-
fully defined circumstances, “state officials are not entitled
to rely on community hostility as an excuse not to protect,
by inaction or affirmative conduct, the exercise of funda-
mental rights.” Smith v. Ross, 482 F. 2d 33, 37 (6th Cir.
1973). Accord, e.g., Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 119
(1969) (Black, J. concurring) and cases cited therein.®

*In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949), for example, a
speaker, whose ideas had caused a violent reaction from some mem-
bers of his audience, was convicted of violating an ordinance that
prohibited any activity that ‘‘ ‘stirs the public to anger, invites
dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance,
or if it molests the inhabitants in the enjoyment of peace and quiet
by arousing alarm.’’’ Id. at 3. In reversing the conviction, the
Court observed that ‘‘. . . a function of free speech under our
system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed serve its
highest purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dis-
satisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to
anger.’’ Id. at 4.

In view of this high purpose of the First Amendment, the
Supreme Court has become increasingly reluctant to affirm convic-
tions of speakers for disorderly conduct or breach of the peace
when their expression of ideas protected by the First Amendment
has unintentionally provoked reaction from a hostile crowd. E.g.,
Street v. New York, 394 U. 8S. 576 (1969); Gregory v. Chicago,
supra; Cox v. New Hampshire, 379 U.S. 536, 559 (1965) ; Edwards
y. South Carolina, supra; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268,

(Footnote continued on following page.)

AR EMEP Ea ELLE DELL OE NN IOGE IE GLEN ALLE RN VEIT GL TOOL TNR ILE TLE

42

The duty of police officers to protect persons exercising
the constitutional right of expression is illustrated by the
case of Cottonreader v. Johnson, supra. In that case, the
court, on behalf of demonstrators for racial equality, issued
an injunction that ordered police officers to protect them
from violent actions threatened by persons opposed to their
cause. In explaining the basis for its order, the court ob-
served that the police officers had stood by idly while hos-
tile whites attacked the demonstrators and that they had
engaged in acts of brutality themselves. It determined that
the police officers had failed o discharge the duties the law
imposed on them by “failing to maintain and keep order,
generally, when these marches and protests were taking
place,” and it rejected “the claim that they did not have an
adequate police force to cope with such situations” when
this claim was “made without any effort on the part of the

273-89 (1951) (Frankfurter, J. cone.) ; Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U. S. 296 (1940).

In Street, the Supreme Court, in reversing a conviction for
burning an American flag and for publicly speaking contemptuous
words about it, stated :

Nor could such a conviction be justified on the second
ground mentioned above: the possible tendency of appellant’s
words to provoke violent retaliation. Though it is conceivable
that some listeners might have been moved to retaliate upon
hearing appellant’s disrespectful words, we cannot say that
appellant’s remarks were so inherently inflammatory as to come
within that small class of ‘‘fighting words’’ which are ‘‘likely
to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause
a breach of the peace.’’ Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315
U. S. 568, 574 (1942).

Again, such a conviction could not be sustained on the
ground that appellant’s words were likely to shock passers-by.
Except perhaps for appellant’s incidental use of the word
‘‘damn,’’ upon which no emphasis was placed at trial, any
shock effect of appellant’s speech must be attributed to the
content of the ideas expressed. It is firmly settled that under
our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be
prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive
to some of their hearers. [Citations omitted].

394 U.S. at 592.

PER PLEOELINS BELE IONE IES TN ESET BEEBE ENG OME VEL OREN Eye Ree Creoey cee

pia weamre ee =

43

defendants to seek and obtain assistance from other author-
ities.” 252 F. Supp. at 496. ‘The court concluded that

{u]nder such circumstances suppression by public of-
ficials or police of the rights of free speech and assem-
bly cannot be made an easy substitute for the perform-
ance of their duty to maintain order by taking such
steps as may be reasonably necessary and feasible to
protect peaceable, orderly speakers, marchers or dem-
onstrators in the exercise of their rights against violent
or disorderly retaliation or attack at the hands of those
who may disagree and object.

Id. at 497.

If this were a case requiring us to review a criminal con-
viction of Miss Glasson for displaying her sign or to review
the denial of an injunction prohibiting appellees from en-
gaging in activity like that challenged here (assuming that
the other prerequisites for injunctive relief were satisfied),
our inquiry would be ended. See, e.g., Gregory v. Chicago,
supra. In this appeal, however, we review not a criminal
conviction nor a denial of injunctive relief, but a civil action
for damages based upon state deprivation of constitutional
rights by means short of an arrest.

In determining the circumstances under which a police
officer must respond in damages for the tortious interfer-
ence with a person’s right to express ideas, we do not write
upon a blank slate. In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967),
the Supreme Court announced that reasonableness and good
faith was an affirmative defense to an action brought under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court recognized that police officers
acting in good faith should be accorded an area of discretion
when their actions are the subject of a suit for damages for
unlawful or wrongful conduct ostensibly within the scope
of their duties. And, when a police officer is accused of false

44

arrest, “good faith and probable cause” affords a defense
to a section 1983 action brought against him. Jd. at 557.
See also Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974).

This affirmative defense was recently reconsidered by
the Supreme Court in Wood v. Strickland, 43 U.S.L.W. 4293
(February 25, 1975), an action brought by high school stu-
dents who claimed that they had been suspended from school
in violation of their constitutional rights and sought appro-
priate damages. In its discussion of the affrmative defense
available to the school board members who had ordered the
suspension, the Court stated:

The official must himself be acting sincerely and with a
belief that he is doing right, but an act violating a stu-
dent’s constitutional rights can be no more justified by
ignorance or disregard of settled, indisputable law on
the part of one entrusted with supervision of students’
daily lives than by the presence of actual malice. To
be entitled to a special exemption from the categorical
remedial language of § 1983 in a case in which his action
violated a student’s constitutional rights, a school board
member, who has voluntarily undertaken the task of
supervising the operation of the school and the activi-
ties of the students, must be held to a standard of con-
duct based not only on permissible intentions, but also
on knowledge of the basic, unquestioned constitutional
rights of his charges. Such a standard neither imposes
an unfair burden upon a person assuming a responsible
public office requiring a high degree of intelligence and
judgment for the proper fulfillment of its duties, nor
an unwarranted burden in light of the value which civil
rights have in our legal system. Any lesser standard
would deny much of the promise of § 1983. Therefore,
in the specific context of school discipline, we hold that
a school board member is not immune from liability for
damages under § 1983 if he knew or reasonably should

Se a FEDER LEL E LI LOE LE FIG FB IEEE LE AM EEO FSF MR or RIS RENE SLOW. LG EPO LT

45

have known that the action he took within his sphere of
official responsibility would violate the constitutional
rights of the student affected, or if he took the action
with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of
constitutional rights or other injury to the student.
(Emphasis supplied.)

Id. at 4298.

Although only Pierson specifically concerns the liali}ity
of police officers for invasion of constitutional rights, both
Scheuer v. Rhodes and Wood v. Strickland are helpful in
determining the conditions under which an affirmative de-
fense of reasonableness and good faith has been established.
From an examination of all three cases, we conclude that
the factors to be considered in determining whether the
defense has been established are whether the police officers
knew or should have known that the complainant was en-
gaged in the exercise of constitutionally protected activity,
and if they knew (or should have known), whether they
acted out of an honest and reasonable belief that their inter-
ference with the exercise of those rights was required to
avoid imminent and serious injury to persons or property.
Every asserted justification must be considered carefully
on a case by case basis, and due regard must be given to the
fact that the officers may be acting in the urgency of a street
confrontation and not in the contemplative atmosphere of
judicial chambers.

These factors, in one form or another, have been con-
sidered by federal courts for a number of years in cases in
which police officers who suppressed the peaceful expres-
sion of ideas have been asked to respond in damages to the
speaker. In Downie v. Powers, 193 F. 2d 760 (10th Cir.
1951), a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses were attacked by a
mob, and police officers, although aware of threats of vio-
lence, did nothing to prevent the formation of the mob or

ite.
—_ smcaeerrsotsmpeeie —— — gnntantar eye, PMSA NAEP MEG SN MIN SAIS Y WAS TIN ES NNN

46

to restore order after violence broke out. In holding that
because of a procedural error the members of this sect were
entitled to a new trial of their action against the officers
for damages brought under section 1983, the court stated :

One charged with the duty of keeping the peace cannot
be an innocent bystander where the constitutionally
protected rights of persons are being invaded. He must
stand on the side of law and order or be counted among
the mob. [Citations omitted]. But the officials are
the keepers, not the insurers of the peace in the com-
munity. Diligent and conscientious effort is all that
is required. Otherwise, officers would be civilly and
criminally liable under Federal law for every breach
of a constitutionally protected right of a citizen—a
result which the framers of the Civil Rights Act never
intended.

Id. at 764.

Other courts have recognized a defense of reasonable-
ness and good faith to actions brought for damages under
section 1983 even when the justification asserted for the
challenged police behavior was security of the President.
E.g., Scherer v. Brennan, 379 F. 2d 609 (7th Cir.), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1021 (1967); Butler v. United States, 365
F. Supp. 1035 (D. Haw. 1978); Sparrow v. Goodman, 361
F. Supp. 566 (W.D.N.C. 1973), aff'd sub nom. Rowley v.
McMillan, 502 F. 2d 1326 (4th Cir. 1974). In Scherer the
court affirmed a determination that Secret Service agents
were not required to respond in damages for trespass and
for interfering with a plaintiff's use of his home, when the
home in which he kept military rifles, rounds of ammuni-
tion, and cannon capable of penetrating a concrete wall was
located within three hundred yards of an inn where the
President was staying. Although this case was decided be-

47

fore the Supreme Court decision in Pierson, the court took
into account the fact that plaintiff had previously been ar-
rested for illegal possession of a dangerous weapon, a can-
non, and that the agents’ action was reasonably related to
their statutory duty of protecting the President. The facts
of that case are, of course, a far ery from those before us
in which there is no suggestion that Miss Glasson herself
posed any threat to the safety of the President.

In Butler, supra, the court refused to grant defendants’
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in an action
for damages brought under section 1983 against military
security personnel. Plaintiffs had been excluded from a
public reception for the President, and were detained for
fingerprinting, photographing and other purposes because
they wished to express peacefully their opposition to the
President’s policies and to his reelection. In ordering the
case to be tried, the court observed, and we agree, that
“{w]Jhere the occasion for exercising First Amendment
rights has passed, a private action for damages affords the
only practicable means of redressing the wrong alleged.”
fd. at 1040. “But,” the court stated, “a law enforcement
officer may allege and prove in defense his subjective good
faith belief that his conduct was lawful and the objective
reasonableness of this belief under the circumstances.” Id.
at 1045.

Finally, in Sparrow v. Goodman, supra, plaintiffs, who
were excluded from a public gathering at which the Presi-
dent appeared, brought an action for injunctive relief and
for damages for false arrest and assault under section 1983.
The court ordered the case for damages to be set for trial
and observed that the evidence adduced at the hearing in
connection with the issuance of an injunction indicated that
plaintiffs had been excluded solely because they had op-
posed, or because their appearance had suggested that they
opposed, the President. The court determined that the rea-

48

son for exclusiou was plaintiffs’ political beliefs, and that
there was no evidence to suggest that plaintiffs presented
a threat to the President’s safety. Moreover, in rejecting
the asserted justification of presidential security, the court
stated that it was unwilling to assume, without proof, that
the asserted justification was valid. 361 F. Supp. at 586.
Ideally, police officers will always protect to the extent
of their ability the rights of persons to engage in First
Amendment activity. Yet, the law does not expect or re-
quire them to defend the right of a speaker to address a
hostile audience, however large and intemperate, when to
do so would unreasonably subject them to violent retaliation
and physical injury. In such circumstances, they may dis-
charge their duty of preserving the peace by intercepting
his message or by removing the speaker for his own protec-
tion without having to respond in damages. Accordingly,
whether a police officer must respond in damages for his
actions is judged by whether his conduct was reasonable,
considering all the circumstances, and by whether he acted
in good faith. A police officer’s stated good faith belief in
the necessity or wisdom of his action is not dispositive of
that element of the defense, but must be supported by ob-
jective evidence. See, e.g., Pierson v. Ray, supra; Monroe
v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961); Scott v. Vandiver, 476 F. 2d
238 (4th Cir. 1973) ; Rodriguez v. Jones, 473 F. 2d 599 (5th
Cir. 1973); Dowsey v. Wilkins, 467 F. 2d 1022 (5th Cir.
1972). To hold that a police officer is exonerated from lia-
bility if he merely acts in subjective good faith might foster
ignorance of the law or, at least, encourage feigned ignor-
ance of the law. This we are unwilling to do. The law does
not expect police officers to be sophisticated constitutional
or criminal lawyers, but because they are charged with the
responsibility of enforcing the law, it is not unreasonable
to expect them to have some knowledge of it. We cannot
permit a police officer to avoid liability for damages by

RAIL POL ERE NLELS SOLA LIE LL BME BLINN IRM EY GO SENIOR ORI THY EICY PNY OY Jr v8 Oe male enn a ea Seren

49

pleading ignorance of the law when he unreasonably or in
bad faith oversteps the bounds of his authority and invades
the constitutional rights of others. At the same time, courts
should not “second guess” police officers who are often
required to assess a potentially dangerous situation and re-
spond to it without studied reflection. Thus, even though a
police officer may not have chosen the wisest or most rea-
sonable course of action, he will not be civilly liable if his
conduct is based on a reasonable and good faith belief that
it was necessary under the circumstances. See, e.g., Smith
v. Ross, 482 F', 2d 33, 37 (6th Cir. 1973), where this court
stated, in affirming the dismissal of a complaint in a section
1983 action after trial, “We do not condone the actions of
the deputy, who would have served his office more honor-
ably by unequivocally protecting appellants regardless of
the local unpopularity his actions might have evoked.”

In examining whether appellees Johnson and Medley
acted in good faith and whether their asserted belief that
their actions were necessary to protect the President was
reasonable under the circumstances, it is “our duty .
to make an independent examination of the whole record.”
Edwards v. South Carolina, supra, at 235. There is no evi-
dence that Miss Glasson’s placard posed any threat to the
safety of the President, to his motorcade, or to onlookers.
If any danger to public order existed, it was posed by the
persons who were offended by her message. Yet, these per-
sons were located across the street from appellant, were
only twenty-five to thirty in number, and never even stepped
off the curb on their side of the street in the direction of
Miss Glasson. In addition, there were approximately eight
to twelve police officers on duty in close approximation to
this moderately sized crowd and, although Johnson testified
that he was not sure whether this force would have been
adequate to maintain order, he also testified that reinforee-
ments could have been obtained rapidly had that been neces-

A LTR EERE IROL NT. WANA IRE” CRE MORE i Hee RR NEMA POH PRT OY, SPN WY RT IRE NEA I ENE OS

50

sary. Although Officers Medley and Johnson characterized
the hecklers as “near to riot”, at no time did they admonish
the crowd, call for reinforcements, or even alert the Secret
Service despite the claimed danger to the President. More-
over, the disturbance did not attract the attention of any
other police officers stationed nearby. These circumstances,
taken together, demonstrate that their asserted belief that
the destruction of appellant’s poster was necessary to presi-
dential security and to public order was not reasonable.
Our examination of the record also convinces us that
the destruction of appellant’s poster was not done in good
faith. The general order of the day was to destroy all
posters “detrimental” or “injurious” to the President.
When Officer Medley first noticed Miss Glasson’s poster he
determined that it was detrimental to the President, a judg-
ment in which Officer Johnson concurred before ordering its
destruction. When Officer Medley took the poster from
Miss Glasson he informed her that the reason for his action
was that the poster was “detrimental to the United States,”
not that she, the President, or any other person was en-
dangered by it. Both officers testified that only posters
favorable to the President were permissible. Moreover,
Officer Johnson unequivocally testified that had this same
crowd under the same circumstances been outraged by a
poster favorable to the President he would not have ordered
its destruction. Although he later qualified his answer, his
testimony still demonstrates that a different standard would
have been applied had the crowd been provoked by a poster
favorable to the President. The actions of Officers Medley
and Johnson were the result of an official determination
not to permit dissent and of their failure to aceord to ap-
pellant the right to engage in activity protected by the First
Amendment. Also, they failed to recognize her right to be
protected from criminal assault and battery. They testified
that they had no obligation to protect appellant, and that

51

had any member of the crowd proceeded against her they
would not have arrested the aggressor because in their judg-
ment appellant’s poster was “inflammatory.” The actions
and attitudes of appellees Medley and Johnson thus bespeak
a callous disregard of Miss Glasson’s right to express and
to advocate peacefully her ideas and exhibit shocking dis-
regard of her right to have her person and property pro-
tected by the state from violence at the hands of persons in
disagreement with her ideas. Compare, Gregory v. Chicago,
supra.

Accordingly, we hold that these police officers are re-
quired to respond in damages under section 1983 of the
Civil Rights Act because they suppressed appellant’s peace-
ful communication of ideas protected by ihe First Amend-
ment. When other persons became hostile because of dis-
agreement with the content of her communication, the police
officers were not authorized to suppress the offending
speech. They may not defend against a section 1983 action
on the ground that her message “could impede the progress
of the motorcade and jeopardize the safety of the President,
other members of the motorcade and the onlookers in the
crowd,” when they made no attempt to calm the crowd whose
unruliness was limited to muttering threats unaccompanied
by action; when they admit that they, either alone or with
available reinforcements, could have handled a potential
disturbance; when they did not contact the Secret Service
or call for reinforcements; and when they admit that had
the same crowd been provoked by a poster favorable to the
President, they would not have destroyed it.

We also determine, after a careful examination of the
entire record, that Miss Glasson’s poster was taken from
her pursuant to a “class-based invidiously discriminatory
animus,” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88, 102 (1972)
and that, unless there exists some other basis for excusing
appellees Hyde, Johnson and Medley, appellant proved a

SAG PITRE TEP STA RSI RTT RRR

52

violation of section 1985(3) of the Civil Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1985(3). Section 1985(3) provides in relevant
part:

If two or more persons in any State . . . conspire
. for the purpose of depriving, either directly or
indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal
protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and im-
munities under the laws; . . . the party so injured or
deprived may have an action for the recovery of dam-
ages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against
any one or more of the conspirators.

The United States Supreme Court, in a recent inter-
pretation of this statute, stated: “The language requiring
intent to deprive a person of equal protection, or equal
privileges and immunities, means that there must be some
racial, or perhaps otherwise, class-based, invidiously dis-
criminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.”
Griffin v. Breckenridge, supra at 102. Although the Court,
in that case, refused to decide whether discrimination based
on a criterion other than race would be sufficient to estab-
lish a cause of action under the Act, its earlier decisions
have suggested that this is so. E.g., Snowden v. Hughes,
321 U. S. 1 (1944). Accordingly, this court, in construing
the statute, has held that the statutory language does not
require that the discrimination be based on race. E.g.,
Cameron v. Brock, 473 F. 2d 608 (6th Cir. 1973); Azar v.
Conley, 456 F. 2d 1382 (6th Cir. 1972). Accord, e.g.,
Richardson v. Miller, 446 F. 2d 1247 (3d. Cir. 1971). In the
Cameron case, we affirmed a judgment for plaintiffs in an
action brought by a supporter of an incumbent sheriff’s op-
ponent who was arrested while distributing campaign
leaflets and who charged that his arrest was a part of a
conspiracy to deprive him and other supporters of the
sheriff’s opponent of the equal protection of the laws. In

PLETE DCEO EE LOL LOSE | NOSE OREO ISG OL TELE ON CHORE TIT CE Oe ep

53

affirming, we held “that ¢ 1985(3)’s protection reaches
clearly defined classes, such as supporters of a political
candidate. If a plaintiff can show that he was denied the
protection of the law because of the class of which he was a
member, he has an actionable claim under § 1985(3).” 473
F. 2d at 610.

In the case before us, the district court found that the
action of the police officers was not based upon an invidious
criterion. Whether that conclusion is one of fact, or law,
or mixed, makes no difference because we hold that the
conclusion was not merely wrong but clearly erroneous. The
record shows indisputably that the Louisville police officers
established as a guideline for monitoring the crowd during
the President’s motorcade an invidious discrimination be-
tween persons displaying posters or signs critical of the
President and those with posters or signs favorable to him.
First, during the general orders on the morning of July 14,
Chief of Police Hyde was present when Officers Medley and
Johnson were instructed to destroy any sign “detrimental”
or “injurious” to the President. When Officer Medley’s
attention was attracted to appellant’s poster he determined
that it was detrimental, and Johnson agreed, referring to
the general orders of the day. Although there was some
conversation between Johnson and Medley concerning the
opposition of some members of the crowd to the poster, the
record discloses that this consideration was only a minor
factor in their decision to proceed against Miss Glasson.
At the time of the unrest, it is undisputed that neither John-
son nor Medley did anything to calm the crowd except to
express assurances that they would accede to and carry out
its wishes. Moreover, when Officer Medley destroyed ap-
pellant’s poster, his justification expressed to her was not
that her personal safety or that of the President was en-
dangered but that her message was detrimental to the
President or to the United States.

PDE LL TELE LEME S PAREN HOTT PI NN NESTE LIER OE EIS PR ORE Re f er

o4

At trial, when Officer Medley was asked what kind of
poster would have been permissible that day, he replied that
only those that had “Welcome President Nixon” or similar
messages would have been permitted. When Officer John-
son was asked whether he would have ordered the destruc-
tion of a poster favorable to the President, he answered,
“No.” Moreover, both officers testified that they had no
obligation to protect Miss Glasson in the event the crowd
assaulted her because her poster was “inflammatory.”

The record is thus unmistakably clear that appellees in-
tended to permit no criticism of the President that day. A
more invidious classification than that between persons who
support government officials and their policies and those
who are critical of them is difficult to imagine. Appellees
drew a line that was not merely invidious but one that also
struck at the very heart of the protection afforded all per-
sons by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See, New
York Times, Inc. v. Sullivan, supra.

We hold that the district court erred in entering a judg-
ment for appellees in the section 1983 action on the grounds
that Officers Johnson and Medley acted reasonably and in
good faith in destroying appellant’s poster and in the sec-
tion 1985(3) action on the ground that appellant had failed
to prove that the destruction of her poster resulted from an
invidiously discriminatory animus. Accordingly, we re-
verse and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion and for a determination of the damages Miss
Glasson sustained. In so doing, we observe that appellant
may recover not only for out-of-pocket expenses but also
for emotional and mental distress. Donovan v. Reinbold,
433 F. 2d 738 (9th Cir. 1970).

Reversed and remanded.

EELS RET LENNON TPE Ee NR AN Re er ee aaa to tana eR page

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Martin R. Glenn, one of the attorneys for Petitioners,
acting on behalf of all counsel for all Petitioners, and being
a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United
States, do hereby certify that on the 11th day of September,
1975, I served copies of the foregoing Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States on
Marjorie Glasson, Respondent, by mailing copies in duly
addressed envelopes, with first class postage prepaid to his
respective attorneys of record, as follows:

Philip Grauman
425 West Liberty Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Thomas L. Hogan
205 South Fourth Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

a R. Giaue

Assistant Director of Law

Room 200, City Hall
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

a NEE pene eet

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_1547%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.