First Amendment vs. National Security

DRNC Scenario

The author of this report is to answer to three major questions as it relates to the DRNC scenario advanced by the story that preceded it. The first question is the legal claims relating to the use of the LRAD. The second question is the basis that should be used to deny Amnesty International from getting their permit and the implications that this could cause. The final question requires the identification and analysis of any legal claims that might arise if Greenpeace has a protest in the shopping mall and how pat-downs and other security measures may lead to legal or protest-related issues. While the Miami and other personnel have a responsibility to keep the peace and keep people safe, they need to tread very carefully when limiting free speech and/or freedom of assembly as well as over-aggressive use of less-lethal technologies and interventions that can still maim and hurt and/or lead to lawsuits (Stephens, 2012).

Analysis

Regarding the use of the LRAD, it may seem like a good thing to do but it probably would not be wise. Despite the assertions from the manufacturer that the product is safe, the possibility of injury and/or litigation has been proven prior to be an issue and facts are often not needed for a lawsuit to be filed as frivolous or over-exaggerated lawsuits are filed and argued every day. As such, the LRAD can be used but only in extreme circumstances where unrest is truly happening and only when things get truly violent and crowd dispersal needs to happen as soon as possible. Using it too easily and in an unlimited fashion could lead to lawsuits, injuries and other legal problems. Given that, it should only be a last resort. It should be used with caution but the legal liability would fall with the people who ultimately make the choice and not the individual officers or officer managers (sergeants, etc.) that authorize the use of the product. The officers are agents of the city and the planners and if they are permitted to use the product and it is made clear under what circumstances the product can be used, then the officers are just agents and the leader and director of the agents would be made to answer to legal liability problems relating to the use of the product.

Regarding Amnesty International, it has been established that the Torch of Freedom is a First Amendment zone but there are clear exceptions to the First Amendment and that would include the need to provide security and secure the public interest and a political conference that involves the Secret Service would certainly rise to that standard. Since the restriction on using that area would be based on its proximity to the conference and because that limitation has no direct correlation to limiting free speech as the conference and city leaders would not care if it were further away from the festivities, then any legal challenge should be squashed because the intent is to provide security and safety and not quell First Amendment rights (Granick, 2014).

As for Greenpeace and their permit, the desire to protest in a public mall area is a security headache. If one needs proof of that, one need look no further than the "stop and frisk" policy in New York City that has been roundly condemned as a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, among other things. Unless there is a way to secure the entrance and exits to the area and conduct searches on bags and bulky articles coming in or out, it would be a security headache to be sure. To lawfully pat and search anyone, they would probably either have to search everyone no matter what or only pat search based on reasonable suspicion/probable cause or clear examples of criminal behavior. In other words, they need a warrant (not going to happen in the field), probable cause or they need exigent circumstances other than normal probable cause such as a purse snatching in progress or some other felony that is clearly happening in front of police. If the mall is privately owned and operated, then perhaps the mall owners could quash the protest. Another way to quash the protest would be to cite the public safety aspects as well as the general idea of people loitering and protesting in an area that is not designed or meant for such activity as it is a shopping area. It would be akin to people trying to live in a business like it is a residence and that is something a lot of cities actively and intentionally forbid. That would be a much easier road to hoe than allowing the protest and basically begging for a bomb along the lines of the Boston Marathon bombing (in a pressure cooker in a bag) and pat searching for anything other than probable cause is going to cause legal headaches galore (Hutchinson, 2013). In short, Greenpeace should NOT be allowed to protest in the mall. If they choose a better venue, then it should be considered on the merits but with public safety and security in mind.