Menotti

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the majority’s holding that Seattle’s Civil Emergency Order Number 3 (Order No. 3) was content-neutral and served a significant government interest. I cannot agree, however, that Order No. 3 was narrowly tailored and left open ample alternative channels of communication. I also disagree with the majority’s determination that Order No. 3 provided adequate guidance to the law enforcement officers who were assigned the task of maintaining the perimeter of the “No Protest Zone.” 1 Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from *1159 Parts III.A.2-3 and III.B of the majority’s opinion.

Assuming that Order No. 3 had been a valid time, place, and manner restriction on protected speech, I agree with the majority that the Hcmkin class action plaintiffs have raised material triable issues of fact regarding their claim that City officials enforced Order No. 3 to suppress the First Amendment speech of those individuals who sought to protest the World Trade Organization’s policies. The Rankin class action plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed with their challenge to the Order as applied, and I therefore concur in Part III.C. of the majority opinion.…

Opinio by Judge GOULD; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge PAEZ.

OPINION

In this case we search for the proper balance between, on the one hand, the vibrant rights of free speech and assembly in an open society and, on the other hand, the needs of a city to maintain order and security. We consider the constitutionality of an emergency order prohibiting access to portions of downtown Seattle, Washington, during the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) conference. Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the con *1118 stitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction on speech on its face, and we affirm the judgment of the district court on that issue. But we also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain…

Volume 1 of

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR MENOTTI; THOMAS 

SELLMAN; TODD STEDL; DOUG

SKOVE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 02-35971

CITY OF SEATTLE; PAUL SCHELL,

Former Mayor of the City of  D.C. No. Seattle; NORMAN STAMPER, Former CV-00-00372-BJR Chief of Police of the City of Seattle; SHARON STEVENS, a Seattle Police Detective; RONALD SMITH, a Seattle Police Officer, Defendants-Appellees. 

KENNETH HANKIN; JENNIFER 

HUDZIEC; STEPHANIE LANE; DENISE

COOPER; NICOLE PEARSON; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; No. 02-36027 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.  D.C. No.

CV-00-01672-BJR

CITY OF SEATTLE; PAUL SCHELL,

OPINION

Former Mayor of the City of Seattle; NORMAN STAMPER, Former Chief of Police of the City of Seattle, Defendants-Appellees.  5945 5946 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Barbara J. Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 6, 2004 Submission Vacated February 17, 2004 Resubmitted April…