AgdaPkt 2004-02-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. Fob-20-04 11 :57am From-DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 213-531-5891 T-116 P.004/005 F-127 Honorable Mayor and City Councllmembers February 20, 2004 Page 3 Ii to this area. If the City nonetheless makes this choice, it cannot expect the media to reimburse it for this needless expense. Moreover, even if additional security were necessary, the First Amendment prohibits the City from imposing that cost on our clients. To the contrary, the City is required to bear this expense as a necessary part of discharging its governmental functions related to the conduct of this trial. For example, in Forsyth CitY v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 121, 131-37 (1992), the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance whìch linked a parade permit fee to the county's anticipated costs for event security. In that case, the county argued that it was entitled to charge a hìgher permit fee for more controversial parades because it would necessarily bear a greater expense to maintain control of those parades. 1!l at 134. The Court rejected the county's claim, finding that the county necessarily was required to examine the content of the parade in assessing the fee, and that its imposition of a fee therefore unconstitutionally discriminated between parades based on the content of their message. l!l at 135-136. The Court explained that "[w]hile [security] undoubtedly is an important government responsibility, it does notjustif'y a content- based permit fee." Under ~ the City cannot charge our clients for engaging in constitutionally-protected news reporting, even if the City will bear an additional expense as a result. Because the City is assessing a fee only against broadcast entities covering the Peterson trial, this fee is content-based and constitutionally prohibited, The same reasoning applies to the City's proposal that the media be charged more than $16,000 for costs associated with preparing Middlefield Road, plus an additional $2,000 per month for "[m]iscellaneous equipment and maintenance." These expenses are exorbitant and we question whether they represent the true cost to the City. Moreover, like the City's proposal to assign police officers to the MiddlefieId Road area, these expenses are unnecessary. There was no need to stripe and prepare the road., at a cost of $6,300. Our clients regularly cover hìgh- profile events and the media trucks can and do park along the streets without additional prepaxation. Similarly, there is no need to remove and then reinstall any meters. The other expenses are also unwarranted. The City may not impose a tax on the broadcast news organizations that intend to cover the Peterson trial. In reviewing license fees, the United States Supreme Court has declared that the "state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pcnnsvlvania. 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1943). As the Court noted, "[t]he power to impose a license tax on the exercise of [First Amendment) freedoms is .., as potent as the power of censorshìp, which this Coun has repeatedly strUck down." Id. The Court thU$ made clear that "a eovernment cannot nrofit by imposina a licensing: or 1Jermit fee on the çxercise of a First Amendment riaht." lit. at 113-14 (emphasis added). Nor may the: government "rais[e] revenue under the guise of defraying its administrative costs." Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. Metropolitan Tran.qit Aw:horitv. 745 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir- 1984). Notwithstanding these clear restrictions, our clients are amenable to reimbUtliing the City for its lost revenue from the parking meteIS. As the Staff Report indicates, that amount is no more than $3.00 per day per meter. ThU$, a few hundred dollars per month, per vehicle, is the ~.aJC 207713vl J~17N 1..>& ^"Bcl..