Hill and The Pink Pony

[Oscar Knight]

14 Arrests Made Outside Pink Pony South

Posted: 4:39 pm EST February 18, 2008
Updated: 5:31 pm EST February 18, 2008

CLAYTON COUNTY, Ga. -- A crackdown on a Clayton County strip club has led to more than a dozen arrests.
Attorneys for the club are threatening to sue Clayton County Sheriff Victor Hill. That’s after the sheriff’s office conducted two road checks, two days in a row, two days after the club opened. Club managers said the checks severely impacted business.
On Frontage Road just off I-75 near the farmers market not much is open at night – except the Pink Pony South. The club finds it odd that the sheriff would conduct a road check there. The sheriff said when you look at the results, it’s not odd at all.
“We find it very interesting on the first week of business that we're making those types of arrests,” said Hill.
Hill said Ali Powell, a valet parking attendant at the just-opened strip club was found with two guns, packaged marijuana and stacks of pirated DVDs during a routine road check near the club.
“Of course it’s very disturbing to me that the valet driver will be selling drugs,” said Hill.
Powell was one of 14 people arrested during the two-day road check.
The traffic stops have the club’s attorneys threatening a federal civil rights lawsuit.
“We think its designed simply to harass us and shut us down,” said attorney Aubrey Villines.
Villines said she finds it odd that the club opened on Wednesday then the road checks arrived on Friday and Saturday.
“Well, you have to conclude that this was designed to impact our business and it did,” said Villines.
“No, we're not picking on anybody,” said Hill.
Hill said it is not his intent to shut down any legitimate business. “We put road checks anywhere we feel there is crime. Obviously, we were correct this time because we made 14 arrests,” he said.
Villines said you could put a road block up anywhere in the county and have the same results.
Hill said he hopes his road checks will prevent those results at Pink Pony South. “And what I would expect from this attorney is, ‘Thank you,’ said Hill.
The club is sending the sheriff and the county commission letters asking for the road checks, which they call unconstitutional, to stop. They said if the checks don’t stop they plan to take the matter to court. Hill said, ‘Bring it on.’
Copyright 2008 by WSBTV.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or

www.wsbtv.com/news/15335064/detail.html

[Oscar Knight]

In August, a federal judge declined to grant qualified immunity to Mr. Hill in a suit brought by a strip club against the Clayton County Sheriff’s Office. In that complaint, the club (Pink Pony South) alleges that one day after it opened, the Sheriff began operating roadblocks “on a nearly nightly basis” on the main access road into the club. These roadblocks, the club claims, were set up “for the express purpose of interfering with the business and the exercise of First Amendment rights inherent” to the business. When motorists were stopped at the roadblocks, the deputies allegedly threatened potential patrons and told “patrons falsehoods regarding conditions in [Pink Pony South]’s business.”

In denying the Sheriff’s request to dismiss the suit, the district court held:

s alleged, the roadblocks constituted a prior restraint on protected expression, which are strongly presumed to be unconstitutional. A prior restraint on expression exists when the government can deny access to a forum for expression before the expression occurs. The Eleventh Circuit has characterized similar prior restraints as unconstitutional conditions requiring citizens to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights . . . in order to exercise their First Amendment Rights. Here, [Pink Pony South] has alleged that the Defendant restricted access to its venue and searched and seized incoming patrons by operating roadblocks…. The Defendant was on notice of constitutional problems stemming from prior restraints of expression. (all quotation marks and citations omitted).

You could say that Sheriff Hill is learning the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution the hard way. Last week, in another case, a federal jury had to decide whether the Sheriff should be held liable for violating the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Mark Tuggle. Who’s Mark Tuggle? He’s the brother of Stanley Tuggle, the incumbent sheriff that Mr. Hill defeated in the 2004 election. The suit is straightforward: Shortly after the election (on January 4, 2005), Mark Tuggle telephoned Sheriff Hill’s office to offer a few, choice words — to an answering machine, it turns out. He was upset by the Sheriff’s decision to fire 27 officials one day earlier (January 3). Mr. Tuggle was promptly arrested by the Sheriff’s Office for (allegedly) violating a Georgia statute prohibiting harrassing phone calls. (The charges were later dismissed.)

I attended most of Mr. Tuggle’s trial. Both sides were well represented. Mr. Tuggle was represented by Bill Atkins, whom I consider a good friend. Bill tried a super, First Amendment retaliation case; the verdict came as no surprise to me.

Mr. Hill might find it worthwhile to read David Hudson et al.’s excellent new reference: Encyclopedia of the First Amendment. This recently-released treatise is billed as “the first work of its kind,” a “two-volume reference comprehensively examines all the freedoms in the First Amendment, including free speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion.” The Encyclopedia “covers the political, historical, and cultural significance of the First Amendment. It provides exclusive, singular focus on what most people consider the essential elements of the Bill of Rights and the basic liberties that Americans enjoy.”

I am both honored and humbled to have contributed a few essays to the Encyclopedia. My topic: prior restraints.

Posted in: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, damages, prior restraint, strip clubs.

www.meetingthesinlaws.com/2008/10/this-county-aint-big-enough-for-the-both-of-us

[Oscar Knight]

Mia Luna, Inc. v. Hill et al

dockets.justia.com/docket/georgia/gandce/1:2008cv00585/149191/

www.meetingthesinlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mia-luna-v-hill-order-mtd.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MIA LUNA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:08-CV-585-TWT
SHERIFF VICTOR HILL
individually and in his official
Capacity as Sheriff of Clayton County,
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This is a section 1983 action. It is before the Court on the Defendant Sheriff
Victor Hill’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4]. For the reasons set forth below, it is granted
in part and denied in part.
I. Background
The Plaintiff is the owner of an adult entertainment club known as the “Pink
Pony South.” The club, located south of Atlanta in Forest Park, Georgia, opened on
February 13, 2008. The Defendant is the Sheriff of Clayton County, Georgia. The
Plaintiff alleges that the day after the club opened, the Defendant began operating
roadblocks “on a nearly nightly basis” on the main access road into the club. (Comp.

Read More : www.meetingthesinlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mia-luna-v-hill-order-mtd.pdf