TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
http://www.srpressgazette.com/news/aclu_5047___article.html/atf_judge.html
An audio file of the 911 call can be found here: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/atfscallstopensacolapolice.wma <-- WARNING: 10.9MB File!
A PDF copy of the Order on Summary Judgment can be viewed here: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Kilpatrick-SJ.pdf
ACLU Press Release may be found here: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3672
Even though the ACLU completely ignores the Second Amendment, they are a powerful voice when it comes to the First Amendment. I'm uncomfortable supporting them, but in this case, it looks like they're clearly on the side of freedom of speech.
It is very interesting to listen to the 911 tape. The ATF agent (caller) has absolutely no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to put a BOLO on the van. He says he thinks it is an officer safety issue. He also says that FBI agents had already seen the van. When the dispatcher asks if the FBI stopped the van, the caller (ATF agent) asks if they're being recorded - then changes the subject. After the van is located, the police and ATF switch to cell phone communication.
I haven't read over the .pdf yet.
What do you think, is there a chance to put a big ol' smackdown on the ATF for illegal suppression of free speech in this case?
Judge approves ACLU lawsuit against ATF
Lawsuit Claims ATF’s Unlawful Retaliation for Free Speech
2008-10-03 12:07:00
Jeni Senter
ACLU Director of Communications Brandon Hensler says the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida received an early victory today when Senior Federal Judge Lacey A. Collier denied the ATF’s motions for summary judgment in Kilpatrick v. U.S.
The ACLU filed the case on April 18, 2006, on behalf of Karen J. Kilpatrick, who claimed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) violated her Free Speech rights.
Kilpatrick was driving her blue van in Pensacola on April 19, 2004, with the slogans “Remember the Children of Waco” and “Boo ATF” written on some of the windows when she was pulled over by police for questioning by the ATF.
The ACLU argues in the lawsuit that her First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure were violated when officers detained her for an hour, searched her car without consent, and ordered her to remove the writing on the side of her van.
“The ATF’s actions were unconstitutional and there was no legal justification to stop and question Ms. Kilpatrick. We believe that the ATF was trying to silence Ms. Kilpatrick and the 911 call substantiates this position,” said Bert Oram, ACLU cooperating counsel.
“We are confident that we can win this case once the facts are demonstrated and we are pleased that we will be able to make our case in court,” he says.
Counsel for Kilpatrick v. The United States of America are Bert Oram, ACLU cooperating attorney; and Benjamin Stevenson, ACLU of Florida staff attorney in Pensacola.
An audio file of the 911 call can be found here: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/atfscallstopensacolapolice.wma <-- WARNING: 10.9MB File!
A PDF copy of the Order on Summary Judgment can be viewed here: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Kilpatrick-SJ.pdf
ACLU Press Release may be found here: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3672
Even though the ACLU completely ignores the Second Amendment, they are a powerful voice when it comes to the First Amendment. I'm uncomfortable supporting them, but in this case, it looks like they're clearly on the side of freedom of speech.
It is very interesting to listen to the 911 tape. The ATF agent (caller) has absolutely no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to put a BOLO on the van. He says he thinks it is an officer safety issue. He also says that FBI agents had already seen the van. When the dispatcher asks if the FBI stopped the van, the caller (ATF agent) asks if they're being recorded - then changes the subject. After the van is located, the police and ATF switch to cell phone communication.
I haven't read over the .pdf yet.
What do you think, is there a chance to put a big ol' smackdown on the ATF for illegal suppression of free speech in this case?