THE ClRCUiT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
RICHARD W. HOWD, JR.,
Robert S. Minton, Jr.
CASE NO. 99-7430-Cl-08
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONERíS VERIFIED MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND ALTERNATIVE
MOTION TO ADD PARTIES DEFENDANT
THE ABOVE CAUSE came on for hearing on February 7, 2000, on petitionerís verified motion for clarification and alternative motion to add parties defendant served January 21, 2000, and on the amendment to petitionerís verified motion for clarification and alternative motion to add parties defendant served February 4, 2000. The court having considered the verified motion, the appendix to verified motion, the testimony of the witnesses, the videotape evidence that both parties presented, the photographs of Watterson Avenue, the Second Districtís opinions in Riddick v. Suncoast Beauty College, Inc., 570 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1990) and DADís Properties, Inc. v. Lucas, 545 So.2d 946 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989), and the article appearing at 85 CORNELL L,REV. 271 (1999) on the subject of picketing and churches, and the court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby Ė
ORDERED that petitionerís motions be, and they are, hereby granted in
part and denied in part as follows:
1. Petitionerís alternative motion to add parties defendant to this
action is granted to the extent that the following corporation and individuals are added as parties defendant, on the basis that they are agents and servants of respondent, and are in active concert and participation with him with respect to the subject matter of this courtís amended temporary injunction issued December 2, 1999:
Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., a Florida for-profit corporation
Jesse Prince, an individual
Mark Bunker, an individual
Grady Ward, an individual
In all other respects, the alternative motion to add parties defendant is denied without prejudice.
2. Petitionerís motion for clarification is granted in part, Robert S. Minton, Jr., Jesse Prince, Mark Bunker and Grady Ward are prohibited from occupying any portion of the space between the two white lines that the Clearwater Police Department painted onto Watterson Avenue immediately adjacent to the Sank of Clearwater Building. This restriction applies seven days a week, during the following hours, which are the hours during which Scientology staff members and students arrive and depart on foot and in buses and vans for meals in the Churchís dining facilities located in the Bank of Clearwater Building:
Breakfast hours Lunch hours Dinner hours
8:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. 11:45 a.m. Ė 2:30 p.m. 530 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
The foregoing restriction on Robert S. Minton, Jr., Jesse Prince, Mark Bunker and Grady Ward, is binding upon Robert S. Minton, Jr., Jesse Prince, Mark Bunker and Grady Ward, their officers, agents, servants, employees and on those persons in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the original injunction in this action entered December 2, 1999, and this order; however, this prohibition does not affect members of the general public or any other person unaffiliated with Robert S. Minton, Jr., Jesse Prince, Mark Bunker and Grady Ward, their officers, agents, servants, employees and on those persons in actual concert or participation with them, and is not to be construed as prohibiting such persons from occupying said space at any time; provided, further, that nothing in this order shall be deemed to restrict in any way the City of Clearwater and its Police Department from promulgating and enforcing such additional restrictions and regulations as the City and its Police Department have the authority to promulgate pursuant to the Cityís municipal powers to protect the safety of the general public.
3. Except as expressly set forth above, petitionerís verified motion for clarification and alternative motion to add parties defendant as well as the amendment to petitionerís verified motion for clarification and alternative motion to add parties defendant, be, and they are, denied, without prejudice.
4. In all other respects, this courtís temporary injunction entered December 2, 1999, be, and the same is, hereby ratified and affirmed and continues in full force and effect.
5 . Petitioner shall cause Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., Jesse Prince, Mark Bunker and Grady Ward to be served with copies of the following: a summons, which the clerk shall issue; the courtís amended temporary injunction issued December 2, 1999; and the original complaint herein. Upon receipt of such personal service, said additional defendants hereto shall have 20 days from the date of service to file and serve an appropriate response.
6. Any violation of this order shall constitute contempt of court, punishable by a fine or imprisonment.
7. This clarification of injunction is valid and enforceable in all counties in the State of Florida.
8. Any sworn law enforcement officer may assist in the execution or service of this clarification of injunction.
9. The court reserves jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties for purposes of entering further appropriate orders, including the enforcement of this clarification of injunction.
10. The cost of the court reporter shall be divided equally between petitioner and respondent.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County,
Florida this 15th day of February, 2000.
Copies furnished to:
F. Wallace Pope, Jr., Esq.
Denis DeVlaming, Esq.
Paul B. Johnson, Esq.
Morris "Sandy" Weinberg, Jr., Esq.
Michael Hertzberg, Esq.
Bruce G. Howie, Esq.
Training Bulletin -00
VIDEOTAPlNG POLICE OFFICERS DURING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
Date: Februarv , 2000
Because officers are frequently finding themselves being videotaped while conducting criminal investigations in public places, the question has arisen whether it is unlawful for an amateur or a member of the media to videotape officers during such investigations.
First, because the Fourth Amendmentís prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures only applies to government agencies or persons acting at the direction of government employees, the above-described action does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. However, after complying with the warning stated below, officers can prevent the interception of the oral communications between the officers and witnesses during criminal investigations by invoking F.S. 843.02, which makes it a first degree
misdemeanor to obstruct or oppose a law enforcement officer during the execution of a legal duty. Furthermore, officers should submit the case to the State Attorneyís Office for prosecution pursuant to F.S. 934.03, which makes it a third degree felony to intercept any "oral communication" except pursuant to court order or pursuant to one of the exceptions in F.S. 934.03.
F.S. 934.02(2) defines "oral communication" to mean "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication."
Therefore, it is not a violation of F.S. 934.02(Z) to videotape someone in a public place if the video is not accompanied by audio because the video portion is not an ,"oral communication." Moreover, there is ordinarily no expectation of privacy in what a person communicates in public to another within "earshot" of a third person. However, officers can prevent the interception of their oral communications with witnesses during criminal investigations as follows:
*Advise the person who is videotaping you that you are conducting a criminal
investigation and that you must speak with the witness privately to complete the investigation.
*Warn the person who has the video recorder that any interception by that person of your oral communication with the witness is unauthorized, is an interference with an active criminal investigation, and will subject the person to an arrest pursuant to F.S. 843.02 for obstructing or opposing an officer and to possible further criminal prosecution by the State Attorneyís Office for violating F.S. 934.03, if the person does not allow you to speak with the witness privately.
*If the person persists in attempting to prevent you from interviewing the witness privately by placing himself or herself within "earshot" of your interview of the witness, then you can arrest the person for violating F.S. 843.02. You should seize the videotape and video recorder as evidence. If the videotape contains an audio recording of your interview of the witness after your warning to the person, then you should submit the case to the State Attorneyís Office for a non-arrest invest on a violation of F.S. 934.03.
Although officers with this Department have conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism when confronted by persons videotaping them, it is important to reemphasize that officers working on and off duty in uniform should assume at all times that they are being videotaped and must always act professionally and impartially.
Prepared by: Approved by:
Rob Surette, Legal Advisor Sid Klein, Chief of Police