Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LF0G7TZ4

LF0G7TZ4

Ratings: (0)|Views: 319|Likes:
Published by arogers8239

More info:

Published by: arogers8239 on Sep 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/11/2012

pdf

text

original

 
In the
United States Court of Appeals
 For the Seventh Circuit
 
No. 11-2408B
UDDY
B
ELL
 ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,v.
C
HICAGO
P
OLICE
D
EPUTY
C
HIEF
 J
AMES
K
EATING
 ,C
HICAGO
P
OLICE
O
FFICERS
C
ARLOS
M
OTA
 ,P
ATRICK
M
URRAY
 ,
AND THE
C
ITY OF
C
HICAGO
 ,
Defendants-Appellees.
 
Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.No. 09 CV 754
 — 
John W. Darrah
 ,
 Judge
. 
A
RGUED
J
UNE
1,
 
2012
 — 
D
ECIDED
S
EPTEMBER
10,
 
2012
 Before
 
F
LAUM
 ,
 
R
OVNER
 ,
 
and
 
W
ILLIAMS
 ,
Circuit Judges
.F
LAUM
 ,
Circuit Judge
. A Chicago ordinance criminalizesan individual’s refusal to leave a scene when soinstructed by a police officer when three or more indi-viduals are engaging in disorderly conduct nearby.Buddy Bell was arrested under that ordinance, the en-forcement of which he presently seeks to enjoin as
 
2No. 11-2408facially violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The district court dismissed his claims, ruling thathe lacked standing to sue for injunctive relief.We hold that Buddy Bell may sue to enjoin theordinance as facially unconstitutional. We also concludethat Chicago Municipal Code § 8-4-010(d) (hereinafter“Subsection D”) substantially inhibits protected speechand is not amenable to clear and uniform enforcement.We partially invalidate the ordinance and reverse.
I. Background
On January 7, 2008, Buddy Bell participated in aprotest against Operation Iraqi Freedom on the corner ofDearborn Street and Jackson Boulevard in downtownChicago. He, along with other protesters, held a bannerthat said, “End the war and occupation TROOPS HOMENOW.” At the time, President Bush was at a luncheonat the nearby Union League Club.One protester, Andy Thayer, entered the street carryinga large banner and, according to Chicago police,advanced on the Deputy Chief who was monitoring thearea on a Segway. Thayer was arrested, handcuffed, andplaced in a squadrol. Bell and two other protesters, theirown banner in hand, began approaching the squadrol,also walking into the street. The police ordered thethree men to get back on the sidewalk several times.They refused and began chanting, “Hell no, we won’tgo. Set him free.” Chicago police again ordered Belland the other protesters to get back on the sidewalk.They refused, and the police arrested them for disorderly
 
No. 11-24083
In relevant part, the district court instructed the jury that
1
“[t]here is probable cause for an arrest if at the moment the(continued...)
conduct. In particular, police arrested Bell pursuantto Subsection D, which criminalizes an individual’s behavior when he “knowingly . . . [f]ails to obey a lawfulorder of dispersal by a person known by him to be apeace officer under circumstances where three or morepersons are committing acts of disorderly conduct inthe immediate vicinity, which acts are likely to causesubstantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyanceor alarm.” Chicago Municipal Code § 8-4-010(d).A state court acquitted Bell of violating Subsection D.Subsequently, Bell sued various members of Chicagolaw enforcement and the City of Chicago in federalcourt for violating his First, Fourth, and FourteenthAmendment rights, as well as for malicious prosecu-tion and indemnification.
See
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He ulti-mately dropped all but his indemnification claimagainst the City of Chicago. He presented his FourthAmendment claims of false arrest and his maliciousprosecution claim to a jury, which found in favor ofthe defendants. The jury returned three special verdicts.It found (1) that Chicago police had probable cause toarrest Bell for disorderly conduct under an ordinance ofthe City of Chicago; (2) that Chicago police lackedprobable cause to arrest Bell for disorderly conductunder Illinois law; and (3) that Chicago police lackedprobable cause to arrest Bell for obstructing a peaceofficer under Illinois law.
1

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->