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