Pro-life group appeals court ruling

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Sanctity of Human Life Network announced
yesterday that they will be appealing an earlier court decision which
ruled in favor of the California Highway Patrol giving the authorities
the right to arrest the pro-life demonstrators when they peacefully hold
demonstrations on the public sidewalks of freeway overpasses.

The appealed ruling of the Sacramento Superior Court on February 25
of this year said that the CHP had a right to arrest the pro-life
demonstrators because the CHP had determined that the demonstrators’
actions on freeway overpasses were creating a visual hazard to freeway
traffic below. Citing Vehicle Code section 21467, the CHP contended that
the law empowers them, in all circumstances, to forbid the display of
“unofficial” signs to freeway traffic.

These “unofficial signs” include any “signal, device, or marking
which purports to be or is an imitation of, or resembles, an official
traffic control device or which attempts to direct the movement of
traffic or which hides from view any official traffic control device”
according to Vehicle Code section 21465.

In light of Section 21465’s definition of unofficial signs, the
attorney for the pro-life group, Scott Kendall, believes that the CHP
has overstepped their authority. Since the demonstrators were not trying
to imitate traffic signs, Kendall believes that the Vehicle Code has
been misinterpreted by the officers and that the laws, in no way,
authorize the officers to forbid peaceful demonstrations.

Signs that were used by the demonstrators included those that said
“Abortion Kills” and “Choose Life.”

Kendall, an affiliate attorney with the Pacific Justice
Institute, said that he believed that
his client’s First Amendment rights were violated. Brad Dacus, the
president of the Pacific Justice Institute, spoke in depth about the
alleged civil rights violation.

“We feel that this is a very important case because it addresses one
of the most basic and fundamental of all liberties — freedom of speech
and expression,” Dacus said. “We think this case addresses the issue
head on. Because of this, we, at the Pacific Justice Institute have made
a commitment to follow through with this case all the way to the United
States Supreme Court if necessary.”

The group initially started the abortion protests about five years
ago on January 22, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Each
year of the protest, local police kept a watchful eye on the protesters
making sure that they didn’t hang their signs on the fences of the
freeway overpasses. The group never did, so the police left them alone.

The CHP started getting involved with the pro-lifers during one of
their demonstrations in January of 1997 telling them that it was
unlawful for them to be protesting and that they could be arrested.
Because of the CHP’s warning, the group filed a lawsuit — which
included a temporary restraining order — on January 22 of last year so
that they could continue their protests. The 1998 protest was of
particular importance to the group because the year marked the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

During the protest, the demonstrators were notified that the court
had denied their temporary restraining order, and within minutes, four
of them were arrested by CHP officers. They were later released “in the
interest of justice” according to the District Attorney.

The group then filed for a temporary injunction against the CHP which
was also denied by the courts. After the pro-lifers filed a permanent
injunction, which would have allowed them to demonstrate without fear of
arrest, the Sacramento Superior Court once again ruled against them on
February 25.

Speaking about the Court’s most recent decision, Kendall said, “If
the Court’s conclusion is correct, my client can’t even have a
demonstration in front of the court house on the street because police
have the authority — in their own discretion — to attack their First
Amendment rights.”

Kendall continued by explaining that police have never before had
that right to interfere with First Amendment activities. The only time
that police can legally interfere with First Amendment activities is if
it leads to immediate lawlessness and violence, Kendall stated.

“What we’re trying to protect is unfettered government discretion to
interfere with First Amendment activity,” Kendall said.

In addressing the CHP’s argument that the signs were a visual hazard
to motorists, Kendall said that the state legislature had resolved the
issue earlier when they came to the conclusion that it was all right to
have visual hazards. Proof of this, the legislature pointed out, was in
the forms of commercial speech that could be seen from the highway such
as billboards, marquees and advertisements on the sides of busses.

Because of the First Amendment implications in the case, Kendall is
confident that his client will win in the appeals process.

Speaking further about the case, Dacus said, “This case encompasses
the fundamental rights of individuals to express their deep convictions.
Billboards and other large signs have never been contested based upon a
disruption of traffic. This is simply another governmental attempt to
censor the speech of the pro-life movement.”