|
LEGAL DOCUMENTS
ANN STAUBER and the NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION v. The CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND KELLY, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department; and MARVINA C. LAWRENCE (badge # 31467), an Officer of the New York City Police Department
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------
ANN STAUBER and the NEW YORK CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND
KELLY, Commissioner of the New York City
Police Department; and MARVINA C.
LAWRENCE (badge # 31467), an Officer
of the New York City Police Department
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------
|
x
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
x
|
COMPLAINT
03 Civ.
|
Preliminary Statement
1. This is an action to vindicate the civil rights of persons wishing to attend and lawfully participate in political rallies and demonstrations in New York City. In recent years the New York Police Department (NYPD) has adopted a policy and practice of using interlocking metal barricades to create “pens” into which demonstrators are directed and then confined. The use of these pens substantially and unnecessarily burdens the ability of demonstrators to participate in demonstrations, discourages demonstrators from participating in demonstrations, and poses a substantial and unnecessary risk of injury to demonstrators. These problems are further exacerbated when the NYPD, as it occasionally does, seeks to use the limited access to demonstration pens as a way to force demonstrators to submit to suspicionless searches of their bags and other belongings.
2. The plaintiff Ann Stauber is a 60-year-old diabetic wheelchair-bound resident of Manhattan who attended the large anti-war demonstration in New York City on February 15, 2003. Like tens of thousands of other New Yorkers, Ms. Stauber was herded by NYPD officials into a metal pen from which she could not exit without permission from the NYPD. Although Ms. Stauber informed NYPD officers that she had an urgent need to use the bathroom and to return home to check her blood sugar, the officers refused to allow her to leave the pen. When she attempted to leave the pen, an officer forcibly prevented her from doing so and in the process broke the controls on her wheelchair.
3. The plaintiff New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) is a civil-rights advocacy organization whose members regularly attend demonstrations and rallies in New York City, including the anti-war rally on February 15, 2003. The NYCLU also occasionally sponsors or participates in such rallies and demonstrations, and at an NYCLU rally held on September 9, 2003, the NYPD forced all demonstrators to enter a pen and sought to subject them to suspicionless searches.
4. The Republican National Convention is scheduled to take place in New York City starting in late August 2004. The Convention is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters to events similar to the anti-war protests of earlier this year, including the large demonstration on February 15. Upon information and belief, the demonstration tactics employed by the NYPD at the February 15 demonstration and challenged in this case will be employed by the NYPD at demonstrations held during the Convention.
5. The plaintiff Ann Stauber and members of the plaintiff NYCLU intend to attend and participate in demonstrations at the Republican National Convention next August and September. Their right to engage in this First Amendment activity, however, will be substantially burdened by the NYPD’s demonstration tactics. In addition, Ms. Stauber fears she will risk extreme discomfort and even injury if she seeks to attend future large-scale demonstrations.
6. The defendants’ policies and practices of using highly and excessively restrictive pens at demonstrations in New York City and their policy and practice of searching demonstrators entering pens at demonstrations violate the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and their counterpart provisions of the New York State Constitution. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that these policies and practices are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their use at Republican National Convention demonstrations and at other demonstrations. Plaintiff Ann Stauber also seeks monetary damages for injuries she suffered as a result of the defendants’ actions on February 15, 2003.
Jurisdiction And Venue
7. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3-4).
8. Plaintiffs further invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), over any and all state constitutional and state law claims that are so related to the claims within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case or controversy.
9. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that plaintiffs’ claims arise in the Southern District of New York.
10. Jurisdiction to grant declaratory judgment is conferred by U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. Injunctive relief is authorized by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An award of costs and attorneys fees is authorized pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Parties
11. Plaintiff ANN STAUBER is a resident of Manhattan in New York City.
12. Plaintiff NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (NYCLU) is a not-for-profit organization with approximately 30,000 members in New York State, many of whom are in New York City. The NYCLU has its principal office in New York City.
13. Defendant the CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation within the State of New York.
14. Defendant RAYMOND KELLY is the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department. He is sued in his official capacity for injunctive relief.
15. Defendant MARVINA C. LAWRENCE (badge # 31467) is a police officer employed by the New York City Police Department. She is sued in her official and her individual capacity for monetary damages.
Facts
16. A huge demonstration called to protest the impending war against Iraq took place in New York City on February 15, 2003. Organizers erected a stage on First Avenue near 51st Street, and demonstrators assembled on First Avenue for dozens of blocks north of the stage.
17. The demonstration had been preceded by a three-week dispute between the event organizer United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and the City of New York. In a highly controversial move, the City had denied UFPJ’s original permit request for a march that would, among other things, pass in front of United Nations headquarters and had further refused to allow a march to take place anywhere else in the City. After the federal courts rejected a challenge to the denial of the parade permit, the City agreed to allow UPFJ to hold its stationary rally.
18. For the February 15 demonstration the NYPD set up four-sided “pens” made up of interlocking metal barricades running the length and most of the width of each block of First Avenue north of 51st Street. The barricades are designed and constructed in a way that, when they are interlocked, it is virtually impossible for a person to scale or otherwise to pass through the barricade.
19. For entry and egress, the pens had narrow openings only at the north and south ends. These openings were guarded by police officers.
20. The NYPD implemented a set of measures that significantly restricted public access to the February 15 anti-war demonstration scheduled to take place on First Avenue. First Avenue south of 51st Street was closed entirely, and access to Second Avenue was severely restricted and then closed entirely. Protestors were required to filter onto First Avenue via the cross streets starting at 52nd Street and then walk south down First Avenue until they reached the demonstration. As blocks of First Avenue north of 51st Street filled with demonstrators, the NYPD used barricades and police officers to close the corresponding cross streets leading east to First Avenue, starting at 52nd Street and going north. As a result of this plan, the only way to reach the demonstration site was to walk north on Third Avenue or on avenues further west to areas where the cross streets were not closed off, walk east to First Avenue, and then return south. Even before the event had started, the NYPD had closed all cross streets up to at least 60th Street.
21. All demonstrators who managed to make their way to First Avenue were required by NYPD officers to enter a pen. To approach the stage from which speakers were addressing the crowd, a demonstrator had to proceed southward through the length of the pen. The demonstrator could then only exit the pen and proceed to the next southern pen if police officers permitted it. Demonstrators were not permitted to travel south on the sidewalks along First Avenue. If a demonstrator refused to enter a pen, NYPD officials informed the person that he or she would have to leave the area or would be arrested.
22. The pens on First Avenue began to fill up with demonstrators, starting with the pens immediately north of the stage near 51st Street. When police officers on the scene determined that a particular pen was full, they would close that pen. No more demonstrators would then be allowed to enter that pen. In some blocks, NYPD officials closed pens when they were no more than half or three-quarters filled; in other blocks they allowed pens to be filled with so many demonstrators that they were packed into the pen so that they could not move.
23. February 15, 2003, was a windy and extremely cold day. Even though businesses along First Avenue remained open and even though the demonstration continued for many hours, NYPD officials often refused to allow demonstrators to leave the pens to obtain food, water, or shelter from the cold. If demonstrators managed to escape from a pen, they usually were required to leave the area entirely.
24. Police officers also prevented demonstrators from exiting the pens even if they simply wanted to go home. Officers prevented demonstrators from climbing over the barricades, which were in any event so high that they were difficult to climb over.
25. Plaintiff Ann Stauber is a 60-year-old resident of Manhattan. Ms. Stauber has been wheelchair-bound since 1991 as a consequence of an ailment called Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which is a group of inherited disorders that has rendered her susceptible to easy bruising and fractures and to other damage. Ms. Stauber also suffers from Type II diabetes.
26. Ms. Stauber attended the February 15, 2003, anti-war demonstration. She had attempted unsuccessfully to approach First Avenue from the west, well below 51st Street and was allowed to enter First Avenue only after traveling north as far as approximately 58th Street. Ms. Stauber reached First Avenue at approximately 11:00 a.m. There, she was directed into a pen, and traveled south through one or more unfilled pens before finally entering a pen in which she decided to remain. Sometime during the time in which she was in the pen, the police declared it closed
27. After two hours, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Ms. Stauber felt she needed to leave the pen. She felt a strong urge to use the restroom, a common symptom of diabetes, exacerbated by problems arising out of her Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. She also wished to return home to check her blood sugar. And she was very cold. When she approached the opening at the south end of the pen, the officer guarding the opening -- defendant Marvina C. Lawrence (Badge #31467) -- refused to allow her to leave. Ms. Stauber explained her physical condition to the officer, but Officer Lawrence would not permit her to exit the pen.
28. In extreme discomfort and concerned for her health, Ms. Stauber tried to wheel herself out of the exit.
29. When Officer Lawrence caught sight of Ms. Stauber attempting to leave the demonstration, she took hold of the toggle control of the wheelchair, and forcibly turned Ms. Stauber’s chair around, pushing her back into the pen and bending the electronic controls on the wheelchair such that Ms. Stauber could not reach the controls and was immobilized.
30. Other officers looked on, but offered no assistance. Even then, Ms. Stauber asked to be allowed to walk with her canes to the bathroom and was refused.
31. Ms. Stauber remained immobilized in the pen for an hour. She was unable to move until another police officer, accompanying an ambulance that had been called on Ms. Stauber’s behalf, bent back the wheelchair’s controls. At this point, with the demonstration breaking up, Ms. Stauber was permitted to leave.
32. Although the electronics in her wheelchair were not functioning properly, Ms. Stauber was able to make her way home. She arrived at approximately 3:00 p.m.
33. Within a few days of this event, Ms. Stauber’s wheelchair stopped working almost entirely. It took approximately three months for her chair to be repaired, during which time the chair operated reliably enough to leave the apartment only on a few occasions. Ms. Stauber did not have another wheelchair to use during that time period and was almost completely homebound.
34. In the weeks following the February 15 demonstration, the NYCLU received over 300 accounts from individuals about police tactics that day, including 20 complaining specifically about the restrictive use of pens. These accounts described the dangerous environment created by the NYPD’s use of pens and the particular safety risks resulting from the NYPD’s refusal to allow demonstrators to leave pens.
35. One demonstrator wrote that a “police officer refused to allow [her] out of the pen to get medical assistance.” Another noted that “the police had barricaded us all in and would not allow anyone to go anywhere.” A number of demonstrators described the police use of the pens as herding people like cattle and creating a very dangerous situation.
36. In another account, a protester wrote,
As we turned onto 1st Avenue to cheers of those penned in from 55th to 56th (sic) we were quite shocked to see there was a completely empty street stretching from 54th to 55th street. … We couldn’t really hear the speakers, but we could finally see where the stage was, and that people were speaking. … When we were about to leave, probably an hour later, we noticed that the block had completed filled in. … The crowd was pressed up so tight against the metal barricades that a woman was getting hysterical. She shouted ‘you have to let me out! I want to go home! I want to go home!’ ‘Stop pushing,’ said the officer. ‘I’m not pushing,’ she answered, ‘I’m getting pushed!’ The next thing I saw, the metal barricades at the side of the crowd fell over and people flooded out onto the street and down the side street back up to 2nd Avenue. But a few minutes later, the crowd had filled in again and the barricades were back up. The swelling and tone of anxiety returned to the crowd. … I watched as a mother handed her two small children over the barricade to a stranger who carried them to the sidewalk. One of the children, maybe six years old, was screaming for her mother. An officer saw this and asked what was wrong. The little girl kept screaming ‘Mommy!’ and pointing at the crowd. ‘We’ll get her back,’ the officers assured her. And he helped the woman climb over the barricade and brought her to her children.
37. Due to the NYPD’s refusal to allow demonstrators to exit pens, some pens became so overcrowded that demonstrators felt themselves to be at risk of serious physical harm. An employee of the NYCLU observed that in at least one such pen, a group of demonstrators became so concerned about their safety that they pleaded for the police to allow egress from the pen—to no avail. Eventually, the crush of the demonstrators’ bodies inside the pen became so overwhelming that the barricades were lifted into the air and the crowd surged out.
38. The NYPD has a policy and practice of routinely requiring those attending large demonstrations in New York City to enter into and remain in enclosed pens comprised of interlocking metal barricades. Demonstrators who refuse to enter these pens are ordered to leave the area or face arrest, even if they are not blocking pedestrian or vehicular traffic or committing any other offense. At large demonstrations, demonstrators often are prohibited from leaving pens to seek food, water, or shelter and then reentering the pen. In some instances, NYPD officials prohibit demonstrators from leaving pens at all. In other instances where the pens do have exits, the exits are so small and so few in number that it is almost impossible for demonstrators to get to the exit and leave the pen.
39. Upon information and belief, the first major demonstration at which the NYPD used pens constructed of interlocking metal barricades to confine demonstrators was the Million Youth March rally that took place on September 5, 1998. That demonstration -- the stated purpose of which was to support the empowerment of black youth -- was held on six blocks of Malcolm X Boulevard north of 118th Street. Organizers had a permit to hold the demonstration, which was to run from 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m.
40. The issuance of the permit had been preceded by a months-long dispute between the organizers of the Million Youth March and the City of New York. When organizers had sought a permit for a march that would last 12 hours and stretch 29 blocks, the City denied them a permit for any rally in Harlem on September 5, which happened to be Labor Day. Organizers of the Million Youth March rally challenged the permit denial in federal court, and only a week before the rally did a federal appeals court hold that the City could not withhold a permit—although the rally was limited to four hours and six blocks. Both the district and the circuit court agreed that the City’s attempt to deny event’s organizers a permit was unconstitutional.
41. In the weeks leading up to the Million Youth March event, press reports cited NYPD officials as well as then Mayor Rudolph Giuliani making public comments suggesting an antagonistic attitude on the part of the police toward the planned demonstration. In one report, referring to the March’s principal sponsor, Khallid Abdul Muhammed, the Mayor stated, “we're not going to allow a hatemonger to take over our city in any substantial respect. That just will not be permitted.” NYPD officials announced that they planned to have more than 250 officers along each of the six blocks and would clear the streets promptly at the demonstration’s court-ordered finish. One senior NYPD official was quoted as saying, “[T]he mayor’s not about to say, ‘let’s handle them with kid gloves and go easy.’”
42. The thousands of people attending the Million Youth March rally in Harlem were forced by police officers to enter pens constructed of interlocking metal barricades. The only exits were small ones at each corner of the pen, and each exit was guarded by police officers.
43. The pens were filled to the point at which there was virtually no room to move -- making egress impossible for anyone not standing near the exits. The NYPD’s crowding of people into enclosed pens with few exits created a situation that posed a risk of substantial injury to the demonstrators.
44. September 5, 1998, was a hot and sunny day. Despite this and despite the fact the demonstration was four hours long, the NYPD did not permit demonstrators to leave the pens to get food, water, or to use the bathroom and then return to the pens. Demonstrators who left a pen were required to leave the area entirely.
45. In reference to the pens, press accounts reported that one participant in the Million Youth March observed, “We were fenced in like animals. They didn't need all the barricades. It was like a ‘million-cop march’ instead of a ‘million-youth march.’” Another asked, “Why do they have barricades here like we're animals? Why do we have to be locked up like animals?”
46. On February 2, 2002, in connection with the World Economic Forum (WEF), the organization Another World Is Possible (AWIP) held a march that concluded with a large stationary rally on Park Avenue just south of the Waldorf-Astoria hotel, where the forum itself was taking place.
47. In the days and weeks leading up to the WEF, NYPD officials had repeatedly made public comments suggesting an antagonistic attitude on the part of the police toward demonstrations planned in conjunction with the WEF.
48. When the thousands of people participating in the AWIP demonstration arrived on Park Avenue, NYPD officials required them to enter pens comprised of interlocking metal barricades. The NYPD closed the entrances of the pens closest to the front of the demonstration when the pens were only partially full. As a result, the speakers at the event were addressing pens that had large expanses of open space. Meanwhile, pens that were further away from the front of the demonstration were packed as people tried to press closer to hear the speakers. NYPD officials, under the direct command of Chief of Department Joseph Esposito, refused to allow demonstrators to move from the pens in the rear to the half-empty pens closer to the front of the demonstration. Though it was a very cold day and the demonstration was scheduled to last for many hours, the NYPD refused to allow demonstrators to leave a pen to get food or water or to seek shelter from the weather and then return to the demonstration.
49. The NYPD also has a policy or practice of using pens with narrow entrances guarded by police officers as a means of conducting suspicionless searches of the bags and other belongings of persons seeking to participate in demonstrations.
50. On October 6, 2002, the organization Not in our Name held a stationary demonstration in the East Meadow in Central Park to protest the threatened war with Iraq. Not in our Name had a permit for the demonstration.
51. The week before the scheduled anti-war demonstration in Central Park, NYPD officials informed the organizers that they intended to use barricades to create pens in which demonstrators would be confined and further that the NYPD intended to search the bags of all demonstrators entering the pens.
52. The event organizers contacted the NYCLU, which in turned informed the NYPD that it intended to file suit against the plan to search those seeking to attend the Central Park demonstration. The NYPD then abandoned its plan to search demonstrators, and elected not to set up pens to control the demonstration. The Not in Our Name demonstration then took place without incident.
53. On September 9, 2003, the NYCLU held a demonstration in front of Federal Hall in connection with a visit to New York City by Attorney General John Ashcroft. The NYCLU had a permit for the demonstration, which took place between approximately 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. and attracted as many as 2,500 demonstrators.
54. For the NYCLU demonstration, the NYPD had set up a single pen on Broad Street, between Exchange Place and Wall Street. The pen originally had only two entrances though which all those seeking to participate in the demonstration would have to pass.
55. Shortly before the start of the demonstration, high-level NYPD officials on the scene informed the NYCLU that the police intended to search the bags of all those wishing to participate in the demonstration (and who thus were required to enter the pen set up by the NYPD). Only after counsel for the NYCLU objected to the plan and spoke with a senior member of the NYPD’s Legal Bureau did the NYPD agreed not to search everyone. Nonetheless, they conducted numerous searches.
56. In one instance, when an NYCLU employee attempted to gain entry into the pen he was informed by police officers that he would be unable to join the other demonstrators unless and until he permitted a search of his briefcase— which he did.
57. The NYPD’s policy and practice of requiring those attending demonstrations to enter and remain in pens constructed from interlocking metal barricades substantially and unnecessarily burdens their First Amendment rights. At the outset, many simply do not want to enter a pen guarded by police officers and for that reason alone will choose not to participate in the demonstration. This reluctance is greatly amplified when the police officers are searching bags or other belongings as a condition of entry to the demonstration. Second, when demonstrators are confined to a pen and thus not allowed to move around a demonstration site, they are deprived of the important opportunity to participate fully in the event and are prevented from associating with others at the event -- including friends and family -- who are confined to separate pens. Third, the NYPD’s policy of refusing to allow demonstrators to leave pens to get food and water, to use the bathroom, or to take shelter from the weather and then return to the pen creates substantial and unnecessary discomfort for demonstrators and greatly reduces the length of time that many people will remain at a demonstration. Fourth, the NYPD’s policy of limiting or completely curtailing the ability to exit pens unlawfully restricts the free movement of demonstrators, subjects them to harsh and potentially dangerous weather conditions, and poses substantial health risks to those confined to the pens by, among other things, preventing them from attending to medical needs. Fifth, the NYPD’s policy of forcing excessively large numbers of demonstrators into pens creates a significant and unnecessary risk of injury to demonstrators and substantially detracts from the ability of those demonstrators to enjoy and participate in the demonstration itself; this policy also makes it virtually impossible for demonstrators to leave the pens, even in those cases in which the NYPD does not otherwise limit egress from the pens. Finally, anyone who has experienced, witnessed, or otherwise learned of the consequences of the NYPD’s use of pens is substantially less likely to attend a demonstration at which such pens will be used.
58. Plaintiff Ann Stauber attended dozens of political demonstrations during the 1960s and 1970s before she was confined to a wheelchair. Among these were demonstrations in connection with civil rights, the Vietnam War, and nuclear weapons in New York, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere.
59. In recent years, Ms. Stauber has been motivated to return to political protest activity, notwithstanding her disability. The February 15, 2003, anti-war demonstration was her first such activity. Ms. Stauber would like to participate in future demonstrations, including anticipated demonstrations in connection with the Republican National Convention, to be held in New York City in August 2004.
60. As a result of her experiences with the NYPD at the February 2003 anti-war demonstration, Ms. Stauber is apprehensive about attending future large-scale demonstrations at which pens might be used. At the very least, she will now feel obliged to wear an adult diaper and carry food and medicine with her to any such demonstrations.
61. As a result of defendants’ actions on February 2003, Ms. Stauber suffered extreme physical discomfort and has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress.
62. NYCLU members attended the anti-war demonstration on February 15, 2003, and the Ashcroft demonstration on September 9, 2003, and they will participate in future stationary demonstrations in New York City, including one or more demonstrations in connection with the Republican National Convention. NYCLU members will be forced into pens by the NYPD at those demonstrations and may be subjected to suspicionless searches.
63. The plaintiff NYCLU expects to organize future demonstrations in New York City. The NYPD is likely to use pens at some of these demonstrations.
64. The defendants’ actions were taken under color of law.
65. Plaintiff Ann Stauber filed a Notice of Claim on May 16, 2003. With the approval of the Office of the Comptroller of the City of New York, the Notice was amended and re-filed on October 3, 2003.
Jury Demand
66. Plaintiff Ann Stauber demands a jury on each and every one of her claims.
First Cause Of Action
67. The defendants’ policies and practices of confining demonstrators to pens violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Second Cause Of Action
68. The defendants’ policies and practices of confining demonstrators to pens violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Third Cause Of Action
69. The defendants’ policies and practices of seeking to search the bags or belongings of demonstrators entering pens at demonstrations violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Fourth Cause Of Action
70. The defendants’ policies and practices of confining demonstrators to pens and their polices and practices of seeking to search the bags or belongings of demonstrators entering pens at demonstrations violates the guarantees of Article I, section 12 of the New York Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizures
Fifth Cause Of Action
71. The defendants violated plaintiff Ann Stauber’s rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by confining her to a pen at the February 15, 2003, anti-war demonstration pursuant to their policy and practice of using pens at demonstrations.
Sixth Cause Of Action
72. The defendants violated plaintiff Ann Stauber’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by confining her to a pen during the February 15, 2003, anti-war demonstration pursuant to their policy and practice of using pens at demonstrations.
Seventh Cause Of Action
73. Defendant Marvina C. Lawrence violated plaintiff Ann Stauber’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by using excessive force against her at the February 15, 2003 demonstration.
Eighth Cause Of Action
74. Defendant Marvina C. Lawrence committed the following wrongful acts against plaintiff Ann Stauber which constitutes wrongful conduct under the laws of the State of New York: (a) Assault on the plaintiff Ann Stauber; (b) Battery on the plaintiff Ann Stauber; (c) False imprisonment of plaintiff Ann Stauber; (d) Trespass to chattels of plaintiff Ann Stauber; and (e) Violations of rights otherwise guaranteed to the plaintiff Ann Stauber under the laws and Constitution of the State of New York.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs request that this court:
Assume jurisdiction over this matter; Issue a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ policies and practices of confining demonstrators to pens at demonstrations violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; Issue a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ policies and practices of conducting suspicionless searches of demonstrators required to enter pens as a condition of participating in or attending demonstrations violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Issue a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ policies and practices of confining demonstrators to pens and their polices and practices of seeking to search the bags or belongings of demonstrators entering pens at demonstrations violates the guarantees of Article I, section 12 of the New York Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizures; Issue injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing the NYPD’s policy of using to pens to confine demonstrators; Issue injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing the NYPD’s policy of searching the property of demonstrators as a condition of participation in demonstrations. Award compensatory damages to plaintiff Ann Stauber; Award the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs; and Grant any other relief the court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
CHRISTOPHER DUNN (CD-3991)
ARTHUR EISENBERG (AE-2012)
DONNA LIEBERMAN (DL-1268)
New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10004
(212) 344-3005
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Dated: November 19, 2003
New York, N.Y.
On the complaint:
JULIE E. FINK*
Law Student
New York University School of Law
Civil Rights Clinic
NICHOLAS N. VIORST*
Law Student
New York University School of Law
Civil Rights Clinic
*Plaintiff and the NYCLU Foundation will be seeking leave of court to permit these students to serve as attorneys in this matter pursuant to the Southern District’s Plan for Student Practice in Civil Actions.
| 
