This page was read by OCR. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
‘25
30.
31.
2s
33,
process. Arbitrary or retaliatory enforcement, without notice, standards, or
opportunity to be heard, violates constitutional protections.
Respondents failed to adopt or follow any written policy governing trespass
enforcement, public access, or appointment procedures. The absence of
defined standards renders these enforcement actions arbitrary and unlawful.
See Marshall v. Northern Virginia Transp. Auth., 275 Va. 419 (2008).
Petitioner was engaged in protected First Amendment activity when he raised
public safety concerns and submitted lawful records requests. The citation and
subsequent ban followed shortly thereafter, without any legitimate
justification or warning.
See Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S.
455 (1980).
Respondent Stewart’s actions appear to have been arbitrary and motivated by
a need to deter further parental advocacy regarding longstanding safety
concerns. The subsequent effort by Deputy City Attorney Lynn Spratley to
retroactively validate the verbal request—after the citation had already been
issued—suggests an attempt to sanitize or legitimize an improper denial of
access. Retaliatory conduct by public officials, when directed at individuals
engaged in lawful civic participation, constitutes a violation of the First
Amendment.
The mishandling of Petitioner’s FOIA request—including its initial denial,
delayed ad hoc processing, and production of the wrong record—was arbitrary
and inconsistent with the transparency principles of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act. See Hulbert v. Pope, 72 Va. Cir. 346 (2006).
Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and
education of their children. This right is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history
and tradition and has been consistently recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jump to an indexed page (9 of 9)