Aaron Ross v. Wayne Early
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4161
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Arena located in downtown Baltimore with heavy traffic; pedestrians and buses congest sidewalks around arena during Circus performances.
- City policy (Barclay 2004) limited where protesters could stand to manage congestion and safety; policy reiterated annually by the Law Department via email.
- Appellant Ross leafleted outside the designated areas on March 12, 2008 and March 25, 2009 and was arrested after repeated warnings.
- District court and later the Fourth Circuit determined the policy was generally applicable and subjected to intermediate scrutiny; parties stipulated the policy was generally applicable.
- District court entered summary judgment for City/BCPD; upon appeal Ross challenges only First/ Fourth Amendment facial validity, qualified immunity for Officer Early, and state-law claims.
- Appellant and defendants proceeded to appellate briefing with the stipulation resolving the scope of scrutiny, leaving only the intermediate-scrutiny question and related defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Policy is a valid time/place/manner restriction under intermediate scrutiny | Ross contends the Policy is unconstitutional as overbroad/inadequately tailored | City argues the Policy is narrowly tailored to promote safety and traffic flow | Yes; policy upheld under intermediate scrutiny as narrowly tailored and no substantial speech burden beyond necessity |
| Whether the Policy is generally applicable rather than targeted, affecting level of scrutiny | Ross argues the Rule functions like an injunction restricting specific protesters | City and district court found it generally applicable; stipulation reinforces that stance | Policy deemed generally applicable; heightened scrutiny not required beyond intermediate scrutiny |
| Whether Officer Early is entitled to qualified immunity for First/Fourth Amendment claims | Ross asserts violation of rights; argues lack of clearly established law | Officer Early acted on probable cause and reasonable orders under the Policy | Yes; Officer Early entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether Officer Early violated Fourth Amendment rights by arresting Ross without probable cause | Arrests based on email Policy; Ross did not threaten public safety | Arrests supported by probable cause to enforce reasonable orders under the Policy | No; probable cause existed to arrest for willfully disobeying a lawful order |
| Whether Ross's state-law false arrest/imprisonment claims survive | Arrests devoid of legal justification | Legal justification exists; no deprivation without justification | Dismissed in light of probable cause/legally justified arrests |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (Supreme Court 1989) (content-neutral time/place/manner restrictions require narrow tailoring and ample alternatives)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (Supreme Court 1994) (injunctions require heightened tailoring; burdens no more speech than necessary)
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (Supreme Court 1988) (content-neutral regulations may target a location to reduce harm to others without banning speech)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court 1994) (narrow tailoring balanced against significant government interests)
- Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (Supreme Court 1984) (content-neutral regulations must be narrowly tailored and leave open ample channels)