Click here to load reader
Apr 06, 2018
8/3/2019 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Order)
1/23
1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
2
Civil Action No. 11-cv-001430-PAB
3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
4
Plaintiff,5
vs.
6
KENNETH SCOTT,
7
Defendant.
8 _______________________________________________________________
9
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
10 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Order)
11 _______________________________________________________________
12 Proceedings before the HONORABLE JUDGE PHILIP A.
13 BRIMMER, Judge, United States District Court for the District
14 of Colorado, at commencing at 4:50 p.m., on the 26th day of
15 January, 2012, in Courtroom A-701, United States Courthouse,
16 Denver, Colorado.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Proceeding Recorded by Mechanical Stenography, Transcription
Produced via Computer by Janet M. Coppock, 901 19th Street,
25 Room A-257, Denver, Colorado, 80294, (303) 893-2835
8/3/2019 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Order)
2/23
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 Aaron Fleisher, Julie Abbate and Winsome Gayle,
3 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950
4 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530, appearing for
5 the Plaintiff.
6 Peter Christopher Breen, Thomas More Society,
7 29 South La Salle Street, Suite 440, Chicago, IL 60603-1548;
8 Rebecca Reynolds Messall of Hackstaff Law Group, LLC
9 1601 Blake Street, Suite 310, Denver, CO 80202, appearing for
10 the Defendant.
11
12
13 * * * * *
14 PROCEEDINGS
15 THE COURT: The motion that is before the Court is the
16 motion of the United States of America for preliminary
17 injunctive relief. This is Docket No. 3. The Court has heard
18 the testimony from witnesses on both sides of this matter and
19 will now make the following conclusions of law, but I will
20 start off with findings of fact.
21 The testimony has shown that Mr. Scott is a person who
22 engages in protests outside of the only public entrance to a
23 facility can which among other types of services related to
24 reproduction also offers abortion services. That facility is
25 called Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. It's located
8/3/2019 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Order)
3/23
3
1 in Denver on Pontiac Street . The entrance to the facility is
2 a public entrance that is open to people who drive in and out
3 of the parking lot. On the other side is a driveway which
4 could allow approximately three cars to go in at one time if
5 they were close to one another. Of course, it appears to be
6 designed just to have one car go in, one car go out at any
7 given time.
8 There is a yellow line that is painted that's parallel with
9 the length of the sidewalk and that particular yellow line is
10 the demarcation between the private property of PPRM and the
11 public sidewalk. Mr. Scott typically and in the instances that
12 have been identified in the complaint and in the instances that
13 have been the subject of evidence today positions himself on
14 the north side of the driveway on the public side of the yellow
15 line. And in fact, there is no evidence that he goes over onto
16 the Planned Parenthood side of that yellow line, but he
17 positions himself on the north side and that gives him an
18 opportunity to engage the drivers of vehicles that are either
19 going into the facility or leaving the facility.
20 For vehicles that are entering the facility, Mr. Scott,
21 either holding a sign, the subject of the sign the testimony
22 was may either have some words on it or the sign may have a
23 photograph on it, both the words or the photograph relating to
24 his message concerning abortion, approaches a vehicle. He may
25 also have literature in his hand and attempts to engage the
8/3/2019 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Order)
4/23
4
1 driver of the vehicle.
2 As I will discuss in more detail when I review each of the
3 videos that have been admitted, Mr. Scott does not move in
4 front of any of the vehicles. Instead, he approaches the
5 driver's side and moves deliberately towards those vehicles on
6 the driver's side. The effect of him doing so is that certain
7 cars, although the testimony indicates not most cars, but some
8 cars will slow down or a smaller subset will slow down, stop,
9 and then Mr. Scott attempts to engage the driver of the vehicle
10 in a conversation regarding his anti-abortion message.
11 For those drivers who choose to talk to Mr. Scott, the
12 conversation that he has with them may last for a relatively
13 short period of time or it may last for several minutes. One
14 of the videos shows a conversation that took place for over
15 four minutes, and during that time that he is engaging a
16 vehicle in the driveway the effect is to block at least a
17 portion of the driveway to the facility.
18 Mr. Cram testified today. He is a security guard and he
19 said that one thing that he monitors at least to some extent is
20 how long a particular vehicle may be stopped while Mr. Scott is
21 communicating with the driver and if that car is stopped for a
22 longer period of time, on some occasions Mr. Cram will go ask
23 the driver to move forward or to exit the facility, pull over
24 to the side of the street and have his conversation with
25 Mr. Scott. Mr. Cram also testified that he occasionally asks
8/3/2019 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Order)
5/23
5
1 Mr. Scott to have conversations with the drivers of persons
2 entering the facility over on the side of the road, but that
3 Mr. Scott has not followed that particular recommendation.
4 The United States has introduced six videos of incidents.
5 Each of the six incidents that is the subject of the videos is
6 mentioned in the United States' complaint, and let me talk
7 about what findings I make after reviewing each of those
8 videos. And what I will do is I will begin in chronological
9 order.
10 So the first one that I will talk about is marked as
11 Government Exhibit No. 6 and it involves an incident that took
12 place on December 16, 2009. And what that particular videotape
13 shows is that a vehicle approached to enter the driveway.
14 Mr. Scott moved forward to engage the driver. That particular
15 car, as cars for some reason tend to do, made a very wide turn
16 into the driveway of the facility. So when the car stopped to
17 talk to Mr. Scott, the car was more in the middle of the
18 driveway. Mr. Scott engaged in a apparent conversation with
19 the driver of that vehicle. That conversation lasted for over
20 four minutes.
21 Towards the end of that conversation with the driver of the
22 vehicle a car approaches from inside the facility and attempts
23 to leave. And, in fact, Ms. Armstrong indicated that she was
24 that person. And the car then needs to wait for a period of
25 approximately 20 seconds before the car that Mr. Scott is
8/3/2019 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Order)
6/23
6
1 engaging in conversation with drives forward. And, in fact,
2 what happens is that eventually she -- once the car moves
3 forward, then Ms. Armstrong is able to drive past. What the
4 tape shows is that after the vehicle was entering goes into the
5 facility, Mr. Scott was talking to the person, actually backs
6 away from the driveway and then Ms. Armstrong's vehicle exits
7 the facility.
8 The next incident is December 23rd, 2009, and this is
9 Exhibit 5 of the government's exhibits. This is an incident
10 that Mr. Cram testified that he witnessed. In this particular
11 videotape, it shows that the conditions on that day were snowy
12 and based upon the behavior of the car also icy. So what it
13 shows is that a vehicle approaches from the south. It goes
14 into a skid. It's skidding along past the driveway and heading
15 towards the area where the defendant and another individual
16 happen to be standing. And, in fact, because of the vehicle
17 skidding, the other individual actually moves closer towards
18 the driveway in what happens to be an attempt to make sure he
19 doesn't get hit.
20 Nothing in the videotape would show that the path that that
21 vehicle took was in any way influenced by where Mr. Scott was
22 standing. It appears as if, like other cars, it may not have
23 seen the entrance or misgauged the road conditions, but in any
24 event, the path that it traveled because of the skidding
25 doesn't appear to be related in any way to where Mr. Scott or
8/3/2019 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Order)
7/23
7
1 the other individual for that matter are standing.
2 Once the car comes to a stop, this is now somewhat past the
3 driveway, Mr. Scott goes into the street and attempts to engage
4 the occupant or occupants, can't tell how many people are in
5 the car, whether anyone is in the passenger's side, but he
6 approaches the passenger s