Home
http://m.sentinelsource.com/mobile/news/local/nh-supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-city-of-keene-s/article_465e0780-8e16-59fa-ad7a-0a05172aff44.html
CONCORD — The N.H. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether the city of Keene's request for injunctions against six people it accuses of harassing city parking enforcement officers would violate their constitutional rights or circumvent existing laws. The high court's five judges heard testimony from both sides' attorneys, asking about implications in a case spanning from First Amendment rights to the application of municipal ordinances. The six defendants named in the case are Graham Colson, James Cleaveland, Garret Ean, Kate Ager, Ian Freeman and Peter Eyre, all affiliated with the Free Keene activist and blogging group that regularly protests government actions in Keene. They're also among those known as Robin Hooders, who regularly travel across the city feeding coins into expired parking meters before the city's parking enforcement officers can issue tickets. Keene officials first took action against the Robin Hooders in May 2013, seeking an injunction to keep the activists 50 feet away from the parking officers because of alleged consistent harassment. The city’s original suit claims the six defendants have verbally harassed officers, encouraged them to find new jobs, followed them closely in a distracting manner, and created safety concerns for drivers and the officers. The city later changed its request to 30 feet and added an additional motion to the case asking for financial reimbursement because the officers weren’t able to perform their jobs properly; for counseling; and for costs because one of the officers quit and had to be replaced, the city said in a complaint. A three-day trial last year in Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene included testimony from the Robin Hooders and parking enforcement officers. In December, Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. dismissed the city’s case, citing the Robin Hooders’ First Amendment rights. Charles P. Bauer, a Concord attorney hired by the city, was back in court Wednesday to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court’s judges. “The three parking employees who are members of the city of Keene — Jane, Alan and Linda — have all suffered work-related stress and anxiety due to the constant, proximate haranguing,” he said in the introduction to his argument. The city needs a way to protect the parking officers from the Robin Hooders’ alleged harassment without violating the Robin Hooders’ rights to freedom of speech, he said. “The reason you don’t arrest people is that we’re not there to try to stamp out the content, the goal, the message,” he said. “Arresting does that — what we’re asking for is to please step back out of the face, and give us some breathing space.” Bauer's motion in Wednesday's Supreme Court hearing further reduced the requested distance between the Robin Hooders and parking officers to 15 feet. The Robin Hooders' attorney, Jon Meyer of Manchester, argued Wednesday that asking the judges to allow the city's request for an injunction would circumvent existing laws. The Robin Hooders have not been charged with any crime, he said. "If there is no law that describes the conduct, I don't think it's appropriate to go to court," he said. The city should have first looked to a city ordinance or protection for the officers under existing laws before asking for a court-ordered measure, Meyer added. "There are statutes and ordinances that prohibit (extreme harassment)," he said. Ensuring the peace of mind of the parking officers, he said, does not justify risking infringement on the six defendants' First Amendment rights with a court-issued ruling. "You can't just grant an injunction for relief ... particularly in a case involving constitutional rights and (where) there was no violation of law," he said. "That's the role of the Legislature, that's not the role of the court." Bauer argued that language from the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of McCullen v. Coakley defended the city's request for an injunction. In that case, the court struck down buffer zones around Massachusetts abortion clinics that were put in place to protect clinic workers from the harassment of anti-abortion protesters. In their ruling, Bauer said, the Supreme Court justices approved the use of court-ordered injunctions against individual protesters. Because the Superior Court judge in Keene denied injunctions against the six individuals named in the case, their harassment of parking enforcement officers has continued and since caused one officer to quit his job, Bauer said. City officials have also asked for reimbursement to cover the cost of that officer quitting, as well as other costs associated with the Robin Hooders’ alleged behavior. Bauer said Wednesday that another officer had scaled back her hours and that a third is considering filing a stress-related workers' compensation claim as a result of the alleged harassment. “There is standing for the city to protect its economic interest,” he said. Justice Carol Ann Conboy asked if issuing individual injunctions against the six defendants would solve both the problem of harassment and the claim for reimbursement. Bauer said it would not. “It solves the most immediate and pressing problem on the streets, but it does not solve the problem of one employee quitting, because of the unfettered conduct by the defendants,” he said. The five judges' questions Wednesday centered on several hypothetical scenarios similar to the allegations against the Robin Hooders, and the protections under the law in those cases. "I'm trying to imagine if someone followed me all day, every day," Conboy said. Conboy asked if Meyer would request an injunction against a person who was harassing one of his clients. Meyer said he would first approach the local legislative body to find out if there was a city ordinance against the behavior. To clarify that the city is not seeking to stifle the Robin Hooders’ right to free speech, Conboy suggested another hypothetical situation to Bauer. “You would have the same position if … individuals were following these parking officers and continually screaming lullabies, so that they weren't expressing any particular viewpoint, but they were following in very close proximity for an extended period of time?” she asked. Bauer agreed. The injunctions would only be a measure to allow the parking officers to complete their jobs without feeling threatened, not to stifle the Robin Hooders' anti-government message or their freedom of speech, he said. The judges will deliberate and issue a ruling later.
CONCORD — The N.H. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether the city of Keene's request for injunctions against six people it accuses of harassing city parking enforcement officers would violate their constitutional rights or circumvent existing laws. The high court's five judges heard testimony from both sides' attorneys, asking about implications in a case spanning from First Amendment rights to the application of municipal ordinances. The six defendants named in the case are Graham Colson, James Cleaveland, Garret Ean, Kate Ager, Ian Freeman and Peter Eyre, all affiliated with the Free Keene activist and blogging group that regularly protests government actions in Keene. They're also among those known as Robin Hooders, who regularly travel across the city feeding coins into expired parking meters before the city's parking enforcement officers can issue tickets. Keene officials first took action against the Robin Hooders in May 2013, seeking an injunction to keep the activists 50 feet away from the parking officers because of alleged consistent harassment. The city’s original suit claims the six defendants have verbally harassed officers, encouraged them to find new jobs, followed them closely in a distracting manner, and created safety concerns for drivers and the officers. The city later changed its request to 30 feet and added an additional motion to the case asking for financial reimbursement because the officers weren’t able to perform their jobs properly; for counseling; and for costs because one of the officers quit and had to be replaced, the city said in a complaint. A three-day trial last year in Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene included testimony from the Robin Hooders and parking enforcement officers. In December, Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. dismissed the city’s case, citing the Robin Hooders’ First Amendment rights. Charles P. Bauer, a Concord attorney hired by the city, was back in court Wednesday to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court’s judges. “The three parking employees who are members of the city of Keene — Jane, Alan and Linda — have all suffered work-related stress and anxiety due to the constant, proximate haranguing,” he said in the introduction to his argument. The city needs a way to protect the parking officers from the Robin Hooders’ alleged harassment without violating the Robin Hooders’ rights to freedom of speech, he said. “The reason you don’t arrest people is that we’re not there to try to stamp out the content, the goal, the message,” he said. “Arresting does that — what we’re asking for is to please step back out of the face, and give us some breathing space.” Bauer's motion in Wednesday's Supreme Court hearing further reduced the requested distance between the Robin Hooders and parking officers to 15 feet. The Robin Hooders' attorney, Jon Meyer of Manchester, argued Wednesday that asking the judges to allow the city's request for an injunction would circumvent existing laws. The Robin Hooders have not been charged with any crime, he said. "If there is no law that describes the conduct, I don't think it's appropriate to go to court," he said. The city should have first looked to a city ordinance or protection for the officers under existing laws before asking for a court-ordered measure, Meyer added. "There are statutes and ordinances that prohibit (extreme harassment)," he said. Ensuring the peace of mind of the parking officers, he said, does not justify risking infringement on the six defendants' First Amendment rights with a court-issued ruling. "You can't just grant an injunction for relief ... particularly in a case involving constitutional rights and (where) there was no violation of law," he said. "That's the role of the Legislature, that's not the role of the court." Bauer argued that language from the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of McCullen v. Coakley defended the city's request for an injunction. In that case, the court struck down buffer zones around Massachusetts abortion clinics that were put in place to protect clinic workers from the harassment of anti-abortion protesters. In their ruling, Bauer said, the Supreme Court justices approved the use of court-ordered injunctions against individual protesters. Because the Superior Court judge in Keene denied injunctions against the six individuals named in the case, their harassment of parking enforcement officers has continued and since caused one officer to quit his job, Bauer said. City officials have also asked for reimbursement to cover the cost of that officer quitting, as well as other costs associated with the Robin Hooders’ alleged behavior. Bauer said Wednesday that another officer had scaled back her hours and that a third is considering filing a stress-related workers' compensation claim as a result of the alleged harassment. “There is standing for the city to protect its economic interest,” he said. Justice Carol Ann Conboy asked if issuing individual injunctions against the six defendants would solve both the problem of harassment and the claim for reimbursement. Bauer said it would not. “It solves the most immediate and pressing problem on the streets, but it does not solve the problem of one employee quitting, because of the unfettered conduct by the defendants,” he said. The five judges' questions Wednesday centered on several hypothetical scenarios similar to the allegations against the Robin Hooders, and the protections under the law in those cases. "I'm trying to imagine if someone followed me all day, every day," Conboy said. Conboy asked if Meyer would request an injunction against a person who was harassing one of his clients. Meyer said he would first approach the local legislative body to find out if there was a city ordinance against the behavior. To clarify that the city is not seeking to stifle the Robin Hooders’ right to free speech, Conboy suggested another hypothetical situation to Bauer. “You would have the same position if … individuals were following these parking officers and continually screaming lullabies, so that they weren't expressing any particular viewpoint, but they were following in very close proximity for an extended period of time?” she asked. Bauer agreed. The injunctions would only be a measure to allow the parking officers to complete their jobs without feeling threatened, not to stifle the Robin Hooders' anti-government message or their freedom of speech, he said. The judges will deliberate and issue a ruling later.