Streit v. District of Columbia
26 A.3d 315
D.C.2011Background
- Fourteen defendants, all pro se, participated in White House demonstrations March 16, 2007, or Cannon House Office Building March 22, 2007, and were tried together without a jury.
- Demonstrators had a valid permit and engaged in peaceful expressive activity; the government sought convictions for FTO or CPL based on police orders to disperse.
- Captain McClain revoked the permit for alleged violations of a National Park Service regulation prohibiting stationary placards, prompting warnings and mass arrests.
- Lt. Beck testified and warned the group; the government presented few witnesses who could identify individual appellants as offenders.
- The government relied on an oral stipulation that appellants were among those arrested, but the stipulation's meaning and its link to individual conduct were ambiguous.
- Court reverses the FTO and CPL convictions due to insufficient evidence tying acts to lawful order or clearly justified police lines; some disorderly-conduct convictions were affirmed as waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the FTO conviction proven by a lawful order to disperse? | Streit's group violated permit rules and thus disobeyed orders. | Dispersal order lacked a lawful basis since permit revocation was not shown to be lawful. | FTO convictions reversed; lack of evidence that order was lawful invalidated the restraint on First Amendment activity. |
| Was the CPL conviction supported by evidence crossing a police line? | Demonstrators crossed a clearly marked line in the course of a lawful protest. | Line's location and notice were not adequately established; crossing evidence was weak. | CPL convictions reversed; insufficient evidence of crossing and lack of lawful basis for the restriction. |
| Was there sufficient evidence identifying appellants’ participation given reliance on an ambiguous stipulation? | Stipulation established the defendants as those arrested. | Stipulation was ambiguous and did not reliably prove individual identity or conduct. | Evidence insufficient to sustain convictions on identity; convictions reversed for FTO and CPL. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloch v. District of Columbia, 863 A.2d 845 (D.C. 2004) (overturned crossing of police line where restriction wasn't properly justified)
- Karriem v. District of Columbia, 717 A.2d 317 (D.C. 1998) (invalidity of sign did not justify disobeying police order when sign appeared valid)
- Washington Mobilization Committee v. Cullinane, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 215, 566 F.2d 107 (1977) (police-line regulation requires shown purposes and notice; burden on government to justify restraints)
- Tetaz v. District of Columbia, 976 A.2d 907 (D.C. 2009) (identity and evidentiary standards in consolidated prosecutions)
- White House Vigil for the ERA Committee v. Clark, 241 U.S.App.D.C. 201, 746 F.2d 1518 (1984) (public-forum analysis of time/place/mashion restrictions on protests)