The state's commissioner of public safety is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of protesters who say 黑料吃瓜网 State Police stifled their free speech by breaking up demonstrations on highway overpasses.
In a motion filed in court Oct. 9, lawyers for Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) Commissioner Ronnell Higgins argued the lawsuit should be dropped because state police recently issued new guidance to troopers on highway protests.
A training bulletin circulated in September makes clear that demonstrations on highway bridges are allowed under certain conditions. All troopers were required to acknowledge reading the bulletin, which states that regardless of 鈥渋ndividual opinions about the messages being expressed,鈥� troopers must 鈥渂e objective and content-neutral while allowing protest activity, as long as protesters are not actively committing crimes."
State police have cited 鈥� and in one case, arrested 鈥� protesters who were speaking out against President Donald Trump鈥檚 policies. They argue the demonstrations became a dangerous distraction for drivers.
The 黑料吃瓜网 chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) disagreed, filing a lawsuit in September asking a judge to rule the demonstrations are lawful.
The group argues state police are inconsistently enforcing state laws and infringing on individual speech rights. The ACLU asked a judge to issue a preliminary injunction barring state police from dispersing sidewalk protests while the case is pending.
The ACLU filed its lawsuit on Sept. 16 on behalf of two 黑料吃瓜网 residents, Erin Quinn, 46, and Robert Marra, 70. Though Quinn and Marra were never arrested or cited, they have stopped going out to protest out of fear of criminal prosecution, according to the suit.
Lawyers for the state argue those fears are no longer founded because a new training bulletin was issued.
The state also argues the suit is barred from being heard in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, which grants the state sovereign immunity, and does not allow a federal judge jurisdiction over claims that allege a past violation of federal law.
"Considering last month鈥檚 State Police Training Bulletin, the Plaintiffs now have clarity that they will not be subject to enforcement actions if they themselves simply stand safely on a highway overpass with a sign," lawyers wrote.
The lawsuit followed the arrest of Hamden resident Katherine Hinds, who has emerged as a public face of the highway protest movement. The 71-year-old has organized about 45 protests around the greater New Haven area this year. Members hold signs with messages such as 鈥淒ue process is the law鈥� and 鈥淒eport Musk.鈥�
Videos released by state police show a series of encounters between troopers and Hinds, leading up to her arrest on July 19 during a protest in West Haven. A few weeks later, on Aug. 8, a trooper showed up to Hinds鈥� doorstep and arrested her again for activity during other highway overpass protests.
Hinds is charged with trespassing and breach of peace. Her attorney, Margaret Donovan, said Hinds and fellow protestors received conflicting guidance from state and local police during the incidents about what they were allowed to do.
In addition to bringing criminal charges, police cited Hinds and eight others with violating a state statute that prohibits attaching unauthorized signs to a highway bridge. First time offenders face a fine of up to $100. Subsequent offenses are punishable with fines of up to $500.
Records reviewed by 黑料吃瓜网 show it was an exceedingly rare step. No other citations under the statute have been issued in at least a decade, according to data provided by the 黑料吃瓜网 Judicial Branch.
Bulletin offers guidance for troopers
The state argues the judge hearing the federal lawsuit must abstain from ruling while the criminal case against Hinds plays out.
Lawyers for DESPP also argue the relief sought by the ACLU is 鈥渦nworkably vague,鈥� and amounts to a restraining order against state police, providing protesters who engage in unsafe or illegal activity with a legal defense.
Such an order 鈥渃annot apply to the multiplicity of variable situations that could occur in the context of State Police officers engaging with a highway overpass protest,鈥� they wrote.
Under the training bulletin, troopers maintain discretion over how to respond to demonstrations. As an example, it notes that a 鈥渟ingle individual standing on a sidewalk holding a sign would warrant no action, whereas a large group of individuals standing in a roadway blocking traffic will require a more proactive response."
The document also instructs troopers to weigh whether signs pose a safety risk by obstructing visibility, distracting motorists or presenting the possibility of falling into the road. It notes a 鈥渟ingle sign of the American flag on an overpass fence might not create a significant risk, while multiple large and bulky signs might require action."
In a reply filed in court last week, the ACLU called the state's arguments about roadway safety "factual strawmen." It said the protesters want permission only to stand on the sidewalk and hold signs. The two plaintiffs had previous run-ins with troopers while demonstrating, making the threat of future prosecution "sufficiently imminent," their lawyers wrote.
The state also failed to demonstrate that protests make highways unsafe, the ACLU argued.
"Forbidding smartphone use, or punishing negligent driving while eating, may be justified on no more than a belief that those items could possibly reduce crashes," they wrote. "But barring speech requires the certainty of a direct connection."
