May 21, 2001
Contact: Roy Warden
Phone: (520) 323-1523
Fax: (520) 323-1543
Email: chime@theriver.com

First Amendment Rights Under Assault In Tucson
City Argues Political Speech Should Not Be Protected By The First Amendment
Appeal before Judge Charles Sabalos Argues the Constitutionality
of ARS 13-2904, 11am June 4, 2001

Tucson, Arizona May 22, 2001: In an eleven page appellate brief filed May 1, 2001 in Superior Court, the City of Tucson argues, inferentially, that politically inspired speech should not receive the full protections afforded by the U. S. Constitution. The appeal stems from the arrest of a local citizen, Roy Warden, who was engaged in a political protest, on a public sidewalk, before Tucson Medical Center, on October 4, 2000, and his conviction in city court on February 5, 2001 for violation of ARS 13-2904: disturbing the peace.

"I was informing the public of the well documented malfeasance of the Arizona medical boards, and the fact that one doctor, Peter Schur, while under investigation for allegations of civil and criminal misconduct regarding children, was still meeting unsupervised behind closed doors with children", Warden said. At trial Judge Goldman ruled Warden's conduct was "political in nature."

The US Supreme Court, in a series of decisions including Terminiello v Chicago, Edwards v South Carolina, and Coates v Cincinnati, has struck down the employment of similar disturbing the peace statutes, citing them as "impermissibly vague, standardless and overbroad" when applied to those engaged in political conduct. The Arizona Supreme Court has rendered similar decisions in State v Locks and State v Cota, making a clear distinction between the expression of fundamental rights, which receives the full protection of the Constitution, and other, non-political conduct which does not.

In Tucson’s brief, city attorney George Bromley, ignores the political nature of Warden’s conduct altogether, arguing, inferentially, no legal distinction should be made between the expression of words designed to communicate political ideas and the expression of common curse words. At trial the arresting officer, Charles Walter of the Tucson Police Department, advanced the same premise when he testified he made no distinction between the sound created by words of political communication and the blowing of a car horn. Additionally, Officer Walter testified that one citizen’s right to politically communicate must be surrendered when another citizen states the sound of such communication disturbs their peace.

"The City’s apparent lack of knowledge as to the meaning of the First Amendment, as set forth by numerous US and Arizona Supreme Court decisions is astounding", said Warden. "You might expect such ignorance from a police officer, but not from George Bromley, a member of the Arizona Bar."

"Given the opportunity, people like George Bromley would run Tucson like a banana republic", Warden continued. "They’d rather bend over to protect the financial interests of powerful medical corporations than follow the law".

The appeal is set for oral argument before Superior Court Judge Charles Sabalos at 11 am on June 4, 2001. Concerned members of the public, the media, and members of the bar are encouraged to attend.

Informed-Americans is a nonprofit public interest organization dedicated to the preservation of constitutional rights.