COURT BATTLE TO RESTORE THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF POLES USED TO KEEP OUR BANNERS UNFURLED AND UP ABOVE THE CROWD IN THE BEALE STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT
COURT BATTLE TO RESTORE THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF POLES USED TO KEEP OUR BANNERS UNFURLED AND UP ABOVE THE CROWD IN THE BEALE STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT

On May 5, 2001 the Memphis Police Department denied us access to the Beale Street Historic District with our banner poles. We were again denied access in May, 2002 and every time we appeared on Beale Street thereafter. We have tried unsuccessfully to have this police department decision reversed by appealing to the city attorney to give some instruction to the police, to the police commissioner who turned it back to the officer who made the first decision and then a final appeal to that officer again. All the Memphis Police Department appeals were rejected and thus we were forced to appeal the decision IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. My attorneys, Nate Kellum and Jerry Lang of the CENTER FOR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, filed this action on January 10, 2003.

You may read the PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by clicking HERE.

FINAL JUDGMENT BY CONSENT

Upon this Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on May 2, 2003, the parties have determined that the Court has effectively ruled on the constitutionality of the City’s policy pertaining to poles attached to banners in the Beale Street Historic District. As no further discovery is necessary, the final resolution of this matter and controversy has been settled by and between the parties and accepted by the Court, as reflected herein.
IT IS on this ____7th________ day of ___August, 2003, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. This Court hereby declares that the policy of the City of Memphis, and its representatives, concerning poles attached to banners in the Beale Street Historic District, as of May 2001 and 2002, during the Memphis in May Festival, is unconstitutionally vague under the guideline against plaintiff carrying an eight to ten foot banner-supporting pole in the Beale Street Historic District unless said policy or guideline is duly enacted by the City’s elected representatives, constitutes a reasonable time, place and manner restriction, is not susceptible to arbitrary enforcement, and is uniformly enforced.
3. This declaratory judgment and permanent injunction does not prevent the defendants from enforcing ordinances otherwise applicable to plaintiff that may operate to limit plaintiff from using his pole in the Beale Street Historic District.
4. There is no evidence that the defendants’ pole policy has been implemented in bad faith or because of an animosity toward plaintiff or his message.
5. No compensatory damages are to be paid in this matter.
6. Defendants shall pay the plaintiff the sum of $27,321.06 in full settlement of all claims for attorney’s fees and costs.
7. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action solely for the purpose of enforcing this Order, if such need should arise.

___________________________________ SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


We rejoce in this victory and the liberty we have subsequently enjoyed todate, January 23, 2005 and trust that we will continue in this liberty with pleasant and cordial contact with the Police Officers on the Beale Street beat.

It is noteworthy to state that the case has for some unknown reason also granted to us the use of bullhorns. We never used them until the 2003 Blast and that mostly out of the Historic District. But since we were not stopped we pushed the envelope in 2004 and I have been using a 40 Watt blaster unimpeded all this winter of 2004/5.