ACLU v. ATF
The ACLU filed the case on April 18, 2006, on behalf of Karen J. Kilpatrick, who claimed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) violated her Free Speech rights.
Kilpatrick was driving her blue van in Pensacola on April 19, 2004, with the slogans “Remember the Children of Waco” and “Boo ATF” written on some of the windows when she was pulled over by police for questioning by the ATF.
The ACLU argues in the lawsuit that her First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure were violated when officers detained her for an hour, searched her car without consent, and ordered her to remove the writing on the side of her van.
“The ATF’s actions were unconstitutional and there was no legal justification to stop and question Ms. Kilpatrick. We believe that the ATF was trying to silence Ms. Kilpatrick and the 911 call substantiates this position,” said Bert Oram, ACLU cooperating counsel.
Via Joe, who is optimistic regarding potential future trends.
Update: Get the sticker here.
And for those just joining us, more on the ATF’s stellar record of performance can be found here.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:08 am
And they get upset when we call them “Jackbooted Thugs.”
If the boot fits. . . . .
October 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
There are a couple ways of dealing with this. Most obvious is to just not do anything to upset our civil masters. That always leads to good results, and the BATFU is so good at ignoring the law that I don’t see that as a viable action.
Then again, we could all get “Boo ATFU” stickers on our cars and force them to deal with wide spread LEGAL dissent over their actions. If they try to silence everyone, then they and any LEO that tries to enforce their dictates will find themselves inundated by law suites. (The bad side of this is that any of us that have an FFL will probably get a response harassment of being audited as many times as the ATFU can manage within the law. And since they are so good at shutting down dealers for typos, I’m thinking I’d probably be losing mine.)
I do wonder why this took so long to come to court. The article states 2004 as the offense.
Now if the ACLU would just start defending all of the constitution and not just those articles they like.
October 4th, 2008 at 10:45 am
That’s fairly amazing, actually.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
“Why’s it so god-damned cold in here?!”
— Climate control department, seventh circle of hell.
October 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
BATFE makes a living from trashing the Second Amendment. Is it reasonable to expect them to respect the First or Fourth Amendment? The firearms function of that agency should be abolished as the abhorrence to the Constitution that it is.
Any criminal in this country who isn’t locked up can get a gun. BATFE ACHIEVES NOTHING! WE PAY THEM A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, YEAR AFTER YEAR, TO ACHIEVE NOTHING!
October 5th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
There should be prison time for an agent or two coming from the result of this trial.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Good for the ACLU. 10% of their actions are actually worth something, and this is one of those times.
Fighting this is critical, and there needs to be SEVERE punishment for the BATFE agents involved. Most of those guys are just cops, and I give them credit… those who do things such as this are jackboots, plain and simple.
Now, if we could only teach the little tools at the ACLU to count to “10” while including the number “2”, I might actually believe they were a source of good for protecting the Bill of Rights.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
For the life of me I don’t really know why the AFT even exists. A for alcohol, legal, F for Firearms, (guaranteed by 2nd Amendment), T for Tobacco also legal.
They appear to be an organization that has nothing better to do than try and stay in existence by harassing people.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Alcohol, tobacco and Firearms, great name for a convenience store.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I have to agree with Nylarthotep. Where was the ACLU when that LDS sect needed help to get their kids back? Or during the Heller case? Or whenever schools, like Delaware, indoctrinate instead of educate?
ACLU needs to protect all civil liberties or get out of the business.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Oh sure, if I ride around with writing on my car that says “Screw the police” or similar, I would have to be a complete idiot to think that I wouldn’t be pulled over and harassed by the police.
What does publicly displaying “Boo ATF” really accomplish? Nothing at all, except perhaps being harassed by that same ATF. If I encountered a car displaying “Boo [my name here]”, then I would absolutely harass that person. Sure, that woman has 1st Amendment rights but so do the ATF agents that she’s disparaging. People seem to forget that the 1st Amendment works both ways. She wasn’t imprisoned or arrested, so what’s the big deal?
October 5th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
wow.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Yeah, CR. I see it completely. The analogy is perfect. An average citizen chooses to take offense at something on a bumper sticker naming them personally. Right. Ok.
Now here comes your basic LEO who doesn’t like what the lady has on her sticker, and he has a gun and badge to back up whatever shit he decides to do at that moment. Same thing exactly, except you don’t have the power to frog march that woman into jail if you can psych her into losing her temper, but the LEO does.
And the last time I looked the First Amendment was still in force, right? So the “BIG DEAL” you blithering asswipe is that she was detained by an LEO for no other reason than that she was excercising a franchise guaranteed to her by the creator, and so stated in the constitution that prick is supposed to be sworn to uphold.
Who gives a shit what it accomplishes, that isn’t the point. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it wasn’t the ATFE who pulled her car over, it was the Pensacola cops. God, how can you not look at that set of circumstances and be anything but enraged?
Tell you what ace. When they come for you, don’t look for me, because they’re coming for me first, and they’ve already started. Too bad you were asleep, as with your help I might have been able to stop them. Enjoy your nap, because when you wake up you won’t be able to say or write or listen to anything that isn’t approved for you.
And as for the ACLU – where the hell have you been?
October 5th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“Sure, that woman has 1st Amendment rights but so do the ATF agents that she’s disparaging. People seem to forget that the 1st Amendment works both ways. She wasn’t imprisoned or arrested, so what’s the big deal?”
Unbelievable. Are you trolling, or do you *really* believe this?
October 5th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Now, I’m as fervent and vocal a free speech/fight fascism in law enforcement as anyone, BUT. A little background on this particular case might help.
Karen Kilpatrick was my neighbor when this happened. We watched the whole almost SWAT team-like surrounding of the house, as well as the agents scattered through the neighborhood prior-to. Having worked for the government all those years, you can tell who the vans and sedans belong to. It’s like the scene in Milagro Beanfield War when Christopher Walken drives up. Leaning on the fence as he passes, the ghost says, “Don’t look now, but the boogieman just came to town.”
But I will share with you what apparently precipitated the raid, according to scuttlebutt we heard from agents and the local paper the next day. She was indeed driving around town with the bumper stickers ~ we were all used to them ~ but on April 19th, she’d been slowly driving around the federal Building downtown, over and over again, while screaming out the window and/or honking the horn. Generally creating a scene. Then she went home (to the house two down from mine). Big deal, right?
Factor in that we also learned she/her significant other had sold David Koresh a number of his guns…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=JVz&q=Karen+J.+Kilpatrick+david+koresh&btnG=Search
…along with the date (April 19th should ring a bell…) and you might have a better understanding why they found her actions alarming.
It’s up to the courts to decide the “how heavy handed” aspect of the response, but she definitely wasn’t passing by on her way to the Winn Dixie, if you get my drift.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
> Sure, that woman has 1st Amendment rights
> but so do the ATF agents that she’s disparaging.
The government doesn’t have rights. It has powers.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
tree hugging sister… cease your “two sided” attempts to add to this story. Don’t you see that we only want one side of the story. That is one that makes all LEO, especially the ATF, look totally criminal and incompetent. Karen was and is a victim of an over bearing, totally criminal organization… who happen to wear badges during their day jobs. Get it straight. You bringing up a history of this woman being the attention of a LEO only adds credence to the fact that they are out to get her. It shows an obvious trend that they keep records on who they want to target and assault and violate their rights… yeah the LEOs claim it is called an investigative database, yeah right!
October 5th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
My bad.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Audio of the call from BATF requesting the police stop.
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/atfscallstopensacolapolice.wma
11 MB file. Right-click on the link above and select “Save as…”
Summary judgement at http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Kilpatrick-SJ.pdf (125 KB PDF file)
October 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Two in the groin and one in the head.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
“I don’t want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.”
October 5th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
tree hugging sister….innuendo, 3rd or 4th hand info, rumors and gossip. Yes, I guess you would be a solid source of information in this case. The young lady still has rights enumerated in the bill of rights, even though you don’t like the way they were utilized.
mndasher…These petty ATF functionaries are tax collectors! They need to be disbanded by a strong president or eliminated..(wink)..by congress!
October 6th, 2008 at 7:09 am
CR,
Actually she WAS “arrested” as in “she was not free to leave”. The questions are “am I free to go?” if no, “Then am I under arrest?” (it’s one or the other)
October 6th, 2008 at 8:39 am
“Sure, that woman has 1st Amendment rights but so do the ATF agents that she’s disparaging.”
Actually, in addition to what O’Brien said about government not having rights but powers, if someone has the right to not be offended, EVERYONE ELSE does not have the right to speak freely. If anyone has the right to not be offende, the First Amendment no longer exists. In a free society you have to expect some insults and develop a thicker skin.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am
“…according to scuttlebutt we heard from agents … driving around the federal Building downtown, over and over again, while screaming out the window and/or honking the horn….”
Ahhh, that’s why the ACLU got involved. She set up her defense by deliberately acting like a psycho moron so that the ACLU would jump to defend her. This is a very smart lady.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Then arrest her for disturbing the peace. You know, a real crime not the made up thought crime. That gives fed agencies a bad name.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:22 am
oldguy ~ Who said she didn’t? Certainly not I. And since I guess newspapers and eyewitness are all part of the conspiracy, please change what I wrote into “innuendo, 3rd or 4th hand info, rumors and gossip.” Oh, wait. You did. I’m not even going to say whether they overreacted on the face of it, since it’s not like they’re not famous for exactly that. But what’s also TRUE is that no one was paying her a lick of attention driving around town with those well-worn stickers for months, per her First Amendment rights.
But if you are so willfully blind that you don’t think this particular person, on THAT particular day, suddenly acting erratically in THAT particular manner might cause a bit of an adrenaline rush in this particular day and age, then so be it. Your agenda’s pretty clear.
Judge Collier will sort the rest out, as it should be.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Let me correct myself: “an adrenaline rush of alarm/concern”
October 6th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I’m late to this party, but here are my thoughts as I posted them in my livejournal today:
—-
A friend of mine has a post up regarding the latest news in Kilpatrick vs. US, a lawsuit against the ATF brought by the ACLU of Florida on behalf of a driver who was stopped by local police on the request of ATF based partly on negative signage she had on her vehicle regarding the ATF.
A federal judge has denied the ATF’s motion for summary judgment (meaning the judge saw *something* in there that made him think the lawsuit should go forward), and most interestingly, the audio of the 911 call is posted. Only the first few minutes are interesting – the rest is normal police traffic while they locate and stop the car.
Actually having listened to the 911 call, I now feel the initial traffic stop, at least, was justified. Here’s a partial transcript of the ATF agent’s call in to Pensacola 911:
The ATF agent requests local dispatch issue a ‘be on the lookout for’ description of a van with a request to “stop and FI.” FI means “field interview,” or more specifically, just locate the van, identify the driver, and see if you pick up anything suspicious during the stop.
You do not have to have probable cause for a traffic stop – only “reasonable suspicion.” A van which (based on the description) does not merely have bumper stickers, but instead has placards on the side, and which was seen parked near the Pensacola ATF building on the anniversary of Waco, and was also possibly the same van which stopped at the house of the former gun dealer who sold guns to Koresh – well, that’s enough for *me* to do a stop and talk.
For example, I once stopped a pickup plastered with anti-abortion signs when the local abortion clinic called to say it had been circling the clinic for an hour and they were freaked. The driver was just using the truck as a “mobile protest,” and I saw no pipe bombs or molotovs inside, so after a brief talk, I wished them a good day and let them go back to what they were doing. I called the abortion clinic and let them know there was nothing inherently dangerous about the truck and that was the end of it.
Now, I say the ATF stop was a justified one assuming all that stuff the ATF guy relays to 911 (the date, the description, where it was parked, etc.) are true statements and not made up by the ATF. (I would wager if they are made up, it’s not by the agent who called 911, but instead by whomever told him to look for it.)
All that said, if local police stop the van, do the FI, and pick up nothing suspicious… you’re done. You can’t take that any farther. The driver doesn’t even have to answer any questions not related to their identity and registration and insurance if they don’t want to. And I don’t think anything up to that point was a civil rights violation.
What I’m interested in is the allegation that ATF and/or police then demanded the placards be removed, which *would* constitute a violation, especially if the driver was ever charged with some sort of crime. The article reads “…when officers detained her for an hour, searched her car without consent, and ordered her to remove the writing on the side of her van.”
The detention thing could go either way. They could reasonably detain for the drive time of the ATF agent to the scene, I think, but only about 15 minutes beyond that. (If I am out on a traffic stop for more than 20 minutes, I have to have a really, really good reason, because after a certain amount of time it’s no longer a temporary detention, but an arrest without handcuffs.) The rest of it, stipulating the assertions to be true, are clearly illegal. I really need to read the other public documents to get more details.
Details are important, folks. The original posts I saw about this incident said that ATF had a car stopped solely because of the bumper stickers. That would be a serious problem. But taken in totality with the anniversary of waco, it being a van, large signage instead of simply bumper stickers, the koresh gun dealer connection, and it having been parked at an ATF building? Those are significantly important details.
—–
Uncle, I haven’t read the summary judgment PDF yet but I bet it’s super interesting. Unfortunately it’s time for me to go to work. 🙂
And I’m not saying the ATF are little angels – they aren’t. But we need to ensure we spend our substantial RKBA blogger political capital in meaningful ways, and not get lumped in with uninformed folks who didn’t examine the entire body of data – and thus get ignored instead of listened to.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
so, just to get this straight: the anniversary of any government agency royally fucking up is not an appropriate date to protest against the general fucked-uppedness of said government agency, especially not by reminding anybody of the royal fuckup which went down on that date? we should be conducting all such protests on… what other date, would you suggest?
October 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Kit and others,
Yes, details matter. When you go read the judge’s decision on the summary judgment, you will find out that the judge notes the only reason the ATF agent gave for his search of Kilpatrick and the vehicle was the fact that Kilpatrick had a legal concealed weapons permit. The judge correctly points out that a search is not justified because somebody is obeying the law. He made an illegal search. This alone is worth disciplining the agency and the agent.
You can also listen the the ATF agents conversation with the police dispatcher about looking for the van — and it is more than the “first few minutes” that are interesting. It does not appear to me that the ATF agent has any serious concern about a threat; his conversation with the dispatcher is not what I would call “serious,” nor is his taking a potshot at the FBI who apparently saw the van first.
Given the agents attitude in the recorded conversation and his B.S. basis for searching the van, and the fact that it took over an HOUR to conduct (and only apparently only terminated when the press showed up), yes one could reasonably construe that the stop was more about harrassment than actual worries about any threat. The judge certainly sees this. The ATF, and that agent in particular, look like they deserve a good kick in the shins.