Vodak v. City of Chicago
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5327
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- March 20, 2003 antiwar protest in Chicago led to ~900 arrests; suits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging First and Fourth Amendment violations.
- Demonstration began at Federal Plaza, proceeded as a march with undefined date/route, triggering a permissive waiver instead of a formal permit due to an unwritten practice.
- Chicago Municipal Code requires permits for parades/marches; city typically waives permits for spontaneous/planned spontaneous demonstrations, creating an ad hoc policing approach.
- Mass arrests occurred when police blocked Oak and Chicago Avenues, trapping marchers on Chicago Avenue while attempting to redirect toward Michigan Avenue; many arrests and later charges were dropped.
- Plaintiffs contend the police chief/policymaker authority at the mass-arrest level caused Fourth Amendment violations; district court granted summary judgment on immunity, court of appeals reverses and remands for factual resolution; case posture includes class certification and potential inclusion of Beal plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police waived the permit requirement, creating liability. | Vodak argues waiver allowed mass arrests without proper notice. | City claims waiver but maintains lawful dispersal/arrests supported by orders. | Reversed; issues to be resolved by fact-finder. |
| Whether officers provided adequate notice of revocation and dispersal to permit arrests. | Plaintiffs lacked notice of revocation/dispersal. | Defendants contend orders were given via bullhorns/organizers. | Remanded for factual determination. |
| Whether arrest of demonstrators on Chicago Avenue violated Fourth Amendment as unlawful mass arrest. | Arrests lacked probable cause due to absence of notice/route clarity. | Arrests justified by safety concerns and route control. | Remanded; likely liability if notice absent and arrests unjustified. |
| Whether the City can be held liable under Monell for policymaking on mass arrests. | Policymaker authority (superintendent) directed mass-arrest policy. | Council/City not shown to have directed the policy; improper scope of liability. | Reversed; court to assess policymaker responsibility on remand. |
| Whether plaintiffs should limit claims to Fourth Amendment only. | Claims span First Amendment and other grounds; redundancy. | Fourth Amendment suffices for relief. | Recommended consolidation under Fourth Amendment; other grounds deem redundant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (Supreme Court 1965) (notice of revocation required before arrests for demonstration action)
- Buck v. City of Albuquerque, 549 F.3d 1269 (Tenth Cir. 2008) (notice/retreat requirement considerations in dispersal cases)
- Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C.Cir.1977) (requirement of notice before arrests in demonstrations)
- Papineau v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.2006) (First/Fourth Amendment considerations in mass arrests)
- Church of American Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. City of Gary, 334 F.3d 676 (7th Cir.2003) (advancing notice requirements for permit schemes; spontaneity concerns)
- NAACP v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir.1984) (spontaneity and advance notice in demonstrations; impact on speech)