On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Attorneys Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court on Behalf of Pro-life Protester Wrongfully Arrested Under Mich. Stalking Law
Institute Attorneys Ask Court to Consider First Amendment Protections for Political, Religious IssuesLANSING, Mich. --Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of James Pouillon, who was arrested while engaging in pro-life protest activities under Michigan's Stalking Statute. Citing the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Institute attorneys allege that Pouillon was unlawfully arrested and charged with misdemeanor stalking under the Michigan Stalking Statute, which they insist is substantially vague and overbroad and criminalizes political and religious speech. According to the statute, "stalking" is defined as a willful course of conduct involving continued "harassment" of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel "terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested." In their petition, Institute attorneys argue that Pouillon's speech should have been considered "constitutionally protected activity."
Over a six-year period, from 1994 until 2000, James Pouillon regularly protested near the Young Oldsmobile Cadillac dealership in Caledonia Township in Shiawassee County. On July 15, 2000, Pouillon was engaging in his normal protest activities, which included standing across the street, several hundred feet away from the dealership, while holding a sign and verbally objecting to the company's endorsement of pro-abortion political candidates, when Lori Rowlison, the sales manager of Young Oldsmobile Cadillac, complained to local police that she felt threatened by Pouillon's presence. Rowlison's complaint led to Pouillon's arrest and a sentence that included a five-year probation and a 30-day jail term, as well as being prohibited from protesting near Young Oldsmobile Cadillac during business hours. Institute attorneys argue that Pouillon was not engaging in truly threatening behavior but was merely exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. Furthermore, Pouillon's political and religious speech was not conduct that could reasonably be considered "stalking" under the Michigan statute. In June 2003, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed a ruling by a Michigan District Court, which held that Pouillon's political and religious anti-abortion speech in the proximity of a commercial establishment was not "constitutionally protected activity" as excluded from the Michigan Stalking Statute. Institute attorneys are asking the high court to rule that Pouillon's conviction under the statute violates the Free Speech and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
"The right to non-violently picket, protest and boycott against businesses is a right that has been well-established in the courts," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "As the Supreme Court has frequently observed, 'A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute.' Michigan's stalking law has been used to silence dispute when it comes to politically charged speech such as pro-life protest."
The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.
Press Contact
Nisha N. MohammedPh: (434) 978-3888, ext. 604; Pager: 800-946-4646, Pin #: 1478257
Email: Nisha N. Mohammed
