undercover officer accurately reported what had occurred, but this has now been described by his superiors in the department as proof that the plaintiff Pledge of Resistance "planned" to "kidnap" a federal official and hold him/her "hostage".
While a dispassionate observer might well conclude that there never has been any genuine justification for undercover surveillance of Pledge of Resistance -- an organization which apparently goes to great lengths to eschew violence in any form -- it remains a close question whether what has thus far occurred violated anyone's constitutional rights. More importantly, however, I do not believe the present record establishes a substantial likelihood of any further constitutional violations in this respect. Except for general evidence about adherence to the police department's guidelines, there is no evidence of actual infiltration of any of the plaintiff organizations other than the incident described above, and the police appear to be honestly attempting to adhere to the guidelines and to avoid constitutional difficulties. While a more fully developed evidentiary record might lead to a different conclusion, at this preliminary stage plaintiffs have not shown adequate justification for an injunction against police surveillance.
AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 1987, it is ORDERED:
1. As to the defendants We the People 200, Inc. and Wayne G. Davis, plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
2. As to the remaining defendants, plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART, as follows:
Said defendants, and all persons acting in concert with them or any of them, are preliminarily enjoined:
a. from denying to plaintiffs or any other person permission to lawfully distribute leaflets and other printed matter or to wear, display or carry signs, placards, or insignia, by reason of the message contained therein and sought to be conveyed;
b. from preventing plaintiffs, individuals or groups from distributing literature, assembling or soliciting signatures in Independence national Historical Park or on streets, sidewalks, parks or other areas open to the public, so long as such activities do not involve breaches of the peace, and do not actually interfere with similar activity by others, or with public events then in progress.
3. This Order shall not be construed to prevent the defendants, in the proper performance of their respective duties, from (1) ensuring the safety and security of government officials and members of the public; (2) from enforcing the criminal and other laws and regulations of the City of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States of America; or (3) from barring unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, ceremonies and staged events in celebration of the Constitutional Bicentennial.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.