Neighborhood dispute escalates to federal case

Listen to this article

The Seventh Circuit has rebuked the attorneys who brought a civil rights suit against a police officer for violating their First Amendment rights, even though the suit was not frivolous.

Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote, “Not every constitutional grievance deserves an airing in court. Lawsuits like this one cast the legal profession in a bad light and contribute to the impression that Americans are an overlawyered and excessively litigious people.”

In Sykes’ decision, the court agreed that the officer violated their right to freedom of speech, but concluded the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.

The dispute began with what the court called a “petty neighborhood dispute.”

In a tony Chicago suburb, Jeffrey and Vicki Purtell parked a recreational vehicle in their front yard.

The neighbors deemed it an eyesore, and pushed an ordinance through the local government, prohibiting the storage of RVs on residential property.

The Purtells retaliated by placing Halloween decorations in their front yard, consisting of six wooden tombstones with epitaphs describing the demise of some of his neighbors.

After Halloween passed, and the “tombstones” were still up, a physical confrontation between Jeffrey Purtell and one of the neighbors ensued.

Bruce Mason, the police officer sent to the scene, told Purtell to take the “tombstones” down or he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Purtell refused and was arrested. He then relented, and removed the display.

The Purtells sued Officer Mason, alleging false arrest and violation of their First Amendment rights.

The jury found in favor of the defendants, and the Purtells appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The court first held that the officer had probable cause to arrest Purtell for disorderly conduct, and thus, Purtell had no basis for a civil rights suit under the Fourth Amendment.

However, the court found that the tombstones were protected by the First Amendment, because they did not present a clear and present danger or constitute “fighting words.”

“These were Halloween decorations, after all,” Sykes wrote, “It is true their mocking messages were directed at particular neighbors as well as the passing public. But the average person, understanding the full context, would recognize the tombstone inscriptions as nothing more than an adolescent attempt at retaliatory ridicule — not the sort of inflammatory and personally abusive epithets that tend to provoke a violent reaction.”

Sykes also noted that the tombstones had been on display for weeks without causing any disruption.

Although the officer’s removal of the tombstones violated the First Amendment, the court also concluded that he was entitled to qualified immunity, because his actions were reasonable.

Finding that the fighting-words doctrine is not entirely clear, Sykes concluded, “Officer Mason reasonably may have misunderstood the immediacy requirement of the fighting-words doctrine in the context of this case. He did have a fight on his hands, and he reasonably believed he had the authority to force the removal of the irritant in order to keep the peace.”

Before concluding, Sykes chastised the Purtells’ attorney for pursuing the case.

Sykes wrote the following “in defense of a saner use of judicial resources”: “It is unfortunate that this petty neighborhood dispute found its way into federal court, invoking the machinery of a justice system that is admired around the world.”

While the suit was not frivolous, she labeled it not worth the effort to adjudicate it at public expense.

Sykes cautioned, “We take this opportunity to remind the bar that sound and responsible legal representation includes counseling as well as advocacy. The wiser course would have been to counsel the plaintiffs against filing such a trivial lawsuit.”