UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID H. BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.
Hon.
HURON-CLINTON METROPOLITAN
AUTHORITY, JEFFREY
A. BROWN, BARRIE F. ROBERSON,
and ___ WILSON,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Diane L. Akers (P38729)
Michael J. Steinberg (P43085)
Thomas P. Bruetsch (P57473)
Kary L. Moss (P49759)
BODMAN LLP
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Cooperating Attorneys, American Civil
FUND OF MICHIGAN
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan
60 West Hancock Street
100 Renaissance Center, 34th Floor
Detroit, Michigan 48201
Detroit, Michigan 48243
(313) 578-6814
______________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY,
INJUNCTIVE, AND OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff, David H. Brooks, states as follows for his Verified Complaint for Declaratory,
Injunctive, and other relief against Defendants:
INTRODUCTION
1. Mr. Brooks files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to challenge the constitutionality of the
actions and policies of the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority (“Authority”) and defendant
police officers in prohibiting Mr. Brooks from exercising his right to free speech in a public park.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Mr. Brooks is a resident of Sylvan Township, County of Washtenaw, State of Michigan.
3. The Authority is a body corporate authorized by the Michigan Legislature in Act 147 of
1939.
4. Jeffrey A. Brown is or was an Authority police officer and resides and/or is employed in
the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. Mr. Brown is sued in his individual capacity.
5. Barrie F. Roberson is the Authority chief of police and resides and/or is employed in the
County of Wayne, State of Michigan. Mr. Roberson is sued in his individual capacity.
6. ________ Wilson is or was a Brownstown Township, Michigan, police officer and
resides and/or is employed in the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. Mr. Wilson is sued in
his individual capacity.
7. The acts and circumstances complained of in this Verified Complaint took place at the
Lake Erie Metropark, Brownstown Township, Wayne County, Michigan.
8. Subject matter jurisdiction in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343,
because this action arises under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because this is a
judicial district where a defendant resides and where a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claims occurred.
VIOLATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1983
10. On September 26, 2003, the Lake Erie Metropark held a “Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge Celebration.” Lake Erie Metropark is a public park owned and operated by
Defendant Authority.
2
Detroit_672841_1
11. The program featured various events, activities, and speakers. Numerous public interest
groups, including the Sierra Club and Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, and governmental
organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency, had been allowed to set up tents,
display signs and messages, and engage the public in discourse relating to the wildlife refuge and
other environmental issues. These tents were proximate to a stage and seating area where
various dignitaries addressed the public.
12. Among the speakers was the then-Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton.
13. Mr. Brooks supported the wildlife refuge, but disagreed with federal environmental
policies in general, and the policies of the Department of Interior and Secretary Norton in
particular.
14. Mr. Brooks made a sign reading, “There is no refuge if you can’t drink the water or
breathe the air.” See, Exhibit A. He mounted the sign on a stick and attached it to a backpack
frame.
15. Mr. Brooks then walked to the area of the park where Secretary Norton was to give her
speech. He stood behind and to the right of the seating area, away from the stage. In that
position, Mr. Brooks was not standing in front of anyone, nor was he disruptive in any way.
16. At about 9:45 AM, Chief Barrie Roberson received a radio call that a protester was
observed “in the area of the Complex.” Chief Roberson contacted the sergeant assigned to a
dignitary protection detail.
17. Thereafter, Mr. Brooks was approached by someone identified as Officer No. 1, who
asked Mr. Brooks to leave the public park.
18. Mr. Brooks did not leave the public park.
3
Detroit_672841_1
19. Thereafter, Officer No. 1 returned with a Huron Clinton Metropark Ranger and two other
law enforcement officials, who intended to remove Mr. Brooks from the area.
20. Mr. Brooks asked the officers what law he was violating. The officers responded that
Mr. Brooks was violating the Michigan Riot Act.
21. The Michigan Riot Act, MCL 750.523 et seq., makes it unlawful for five or more
persons, acting in concert, to wrongfully engage in violent conduct, thereby intentionally or
recklessly causing a serious risk of public terror or alarm; to engage in conduct that urges people
to commit acts of unlawful force or violence; and to assemble or act in concert with 4 or more
persons for the purpose of engaging in conduct constituting the crime of riot.
22. Mr. Brooks’ solitary, silent, and peaceful act of standing in a public park with a sign
reading, “There is no refuge if you can’t drink the water or breathe the air,” could not possibly be
interpreted in good faith as a violation of the Michigan Riot Act.
23. Officer Brown stated that he also told Mr. Brooks that Mr. Brooks was violating
Authority Ordinance No. 260.
24. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of that ordinance relate to the circulation of handbills and circulars
and the posting of signs or placards upon structures, trees, and automobiles. They do not apply
to bar the type of activity engaged in by Mr. Brooks.
25. Officer Brown told Mr. Brooks that he could express himself only at an area in the front
of the Park entrance, some two miles distant from where the other Wildlife Refuge activities,
outreach, and speeches were being conducted.
26. Faced with four police officers demanding his exit from the area, Mr. Brooks left the
stage area, traveled two miles to the park entrance, and stood there with his sign for
approximately two hours.
4
Detroit_672841_1
27. Mr. Brooks later enquired of Authority staff if the Authority maintained any written
ordinances or policies applicable to persons who engaged in speech activities at the park. He
was told that the Authority enforced an “unwritten policy” that allowed “protesters” to express
their views only in segregated protest zones.
28. Mr. Brooks would like to express opinions and protest in the park in the future but will
not do so if he is relegated to areas away from the event at which he would like to protest.
29. At all relevant times, all defendants were acting under color of law, within the meaning
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
30. Defendant police officers are state actors who acted in a manner that deprived Mr.
Brooks of his Constitutional right to free speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
31. The actions of defendant police officers violated the clearly established Constitutional
rights of Mr. Brooks.
32. Any regulation of time, place and manner of political speech is impermissible unless it
(1) is content neutral; (2) is narrowly tailored to further the Authority’s substantial interests; and
(3) leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.
33. The policies of the Authority, which allow speakers and organizations with approved
messages to express themselves, but relegate speakers with unapproved messages to a “protest
zone” two miles distant, are not content neutral.
34. The policies of the Authority do not advance a compelling governmental interest.
35. The policies of the Authority are not narrowly tailored to further a substantial
governmental interest.
5
Detroit_672841_1
36. The policies of the Authority do not leave open ample alternative channels for
communication of information.
37. Therefore, the policies and actions of the Authority violate the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
38. Absent injunctive relief, plaintiff and others wishing to freely express themselves will be
hindered and chilled from exercising their protected free speech and association rights.
39. There is not an adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff David Brooks requests that the Court:
A.
Declare that the Authority’s “unwritten policy” of relegating “protesters” to
approved, designated protest zones is unconstitutional;
B.
Declare that, to the extent that the Michigan Riot Act and/or Authority Ordinance
620 is interpreted to bar an individual or group from engaging in political speech by holding a
sign in a public park, the Act and/or Ordinance are unconstitutional;
C.
Issue a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from enforcing the
Michigan Riot Act, Authority Ordinance 620, and/or any “unwritten policy” to prevent
individuals or groups from engaging in political speech by holding signs in public parks;
D.
Award plaintiff nominal damages for the violation of his constitutional rights;
E.
Award plaintiff costs and attorneys fees incurred in this lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1988; and
6
Detroit_672841_1
F.
Grant such other relief as shall be deemed just and proper under the
circumstances.
Respectfully Submitted,
BODMAN LLP
By: ________________________________
Diane L. Akers (P38729)
Thomas P. Bruetsch (P57473)
100 Renaissance Center, 34th Floor
Detroit, Michigan 48243
(313) 259-7777
Cooperating Attorneys
Michael J. Steinberg (P43085)
Kary L. Moss (P49759)
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan
60 West Hancock Street
Detroit, Michigan 48201
(313) 578-6814
msteinberg@aclumich.org
VERIFICATION
I declare under penalties of perjury that the factual statements set forth in the foregoing
complaint are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.
______________________________
David H. Brooks
April ____, 2006
7
Detroit_672841_1