County Executive Steve Bellone’s effort to establish new procedures — and fees — for public assembly permits in Suffolk has been scuttled by objections that the requirements would trample constitutionally protected rights of free speech and assembly.
Presiding Officer DuWayne Gregory introduced the bill, “A Local Law Establishing A Permit Process For Use Of Police Services For Public Assembly,” at the county executive’s request.
The measure would have required any group holding a “public event” that “requires the use of Suffolk County police officers above and beyond what is required for ordinary and routine police monitoring and patrol” to obtain a permit for the event from the Suffolk County Police Department. The permit application would have been required to be made at least 60 days prior to the event. Permit fees would range from $200 to $1,000, depending about the number of people expected to attend, from 100 people to 5,000 or more. It would apply only to events held within the Suffolk County Police District, which excludes the five East End towns.
A public hearing on the bill was scheduled yesterday in Hauppauge. Gregory announced before the hearing started that the hearing would be recessed. “We heard from the administration they are going to make changes,” Gregory said.
“The intent of this bill was to protect taxpayers from being forced to pay for police services for for-profit events,” Bellone said in a statement last night. The polie department requested the legislation of so it could more efficiently manage manpower and overtime, officials said yesterday.
The language of the bill was so broadly crafted that it appears to apply to political demonstrations, protests and rallies. It does not state that it applies to for-profit events. Nor does it exempt demonstrations, protests or rallies.
“The proposed bill does not make clear the spirit and intent of the law, thus the bill is being withdrawn,” Bellone said.
“This seems like an additional way to silence people who disagree,” Jaquelyn Gavron of East Hampton told legislators. “It’s an attempt to criminalize and penalize protected First Amendement protests. The intent is to suppress dissent at a time when people are trying to make their voices heard.”
Gavron was one of more than a dozen residents who spoke out against the bill on those grounds.
Ruth Cohen of Lake Grove, who said she has attended rallies and demonstrations demanding Rep. Lee Zeldin to hold a town hall to speak with constituents, recounted protesting for two hours outside a hotel where Zeldin was giving a speech at a business group breakfast meeting.
“When I arrived at 7:30 a.m. the place was already packed with police. A
road was closed and the area was blocked with crime scene tape,” Cohen said. “I was the only person there.”
Cohen called on Zeldin to pay for police protection that she said he must have requested.
“I’m 78 years old. I had to sit on a rolling chair — that’s how dangerous I am,” Cohen said.
“This is just a canard. This is just to shut us up,” Cohen said. “It has nothing to do with public safety.”
Jordan Heleen of Port Jefferson Station told legislators the stated intent of the bill did not match its language.
“If this was not on anyone’s mind when this law was submitted, you should ralize laws like this could be used to shut down free speech,” he said.
“We agree with you wholeheartedly,” Legislator Kara Hahn said. “We have concerns about it being much too vague. It could potentially be read to obstruct just the kind of assemblies you were talking about.”
Government can require permits for events under certain circumstances without running afoul of the First Amendment, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Permits can be required for a march that does not stay on the sidewalk and other events that require blocking traffic or street closure, for a large rally requiring the use of sound amplifying devices; or a rally at certain designated parks or plazas.
The First Amendment prohibits an advance notice requirement from being used to prevent rallies or demonstrations that are rapid responses to unforeseeable and recent events, according to an ACLU fact sheet. Restrictions on the route of a march or the sound levels of amplification equipment may violate the First Amendment “if they are unnecessary for traffic control or public safety, or if they interfere significantly with effective communication with the intended audience,” according to the ACLU. “A permit cannot be denied because the event is controversial or will express unpopular views.”
