Plaintiffs Florida Cannabis Action Network, Inc., Kevin Aplin, Scott Bledsoe, and Joe Tad bring this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking a judgment declaring Section 191 of the Jacksonville Ordinance Code (Outdoor Musical Entertainment) to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to permanently enjoin the enforcement of the challenged Ordinances.

JURISDICTION

1. This suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Florida Cannabis Action Network, Inc. ("CAN") is a Florida not for profit corporation, which maintains its Registered Office at 305 N.E. 1st Street, Gainesville, Florida 32601.

3. Plaintiff Scott Bledsoe is a natural person and a resident of Orange Park, Florida.

4. Plaintiff Kevin Aplin is a natural person and a resident of Melbourne, Florida

5. Plaintiff Joe Tacl is a natural person and a resident of Levy County,

6. Defendant City of Jacksonville is a Florida municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of Florida.

VENUE

FACTS

8. Plaintiffs Aplin, Bledsoe and Tacl are activists in a political movement. to change the laws of the United States and. the several states prohibiting the sale and possession of marijuana. Plaintiff CAN is a Florida not for profit corporation formed and operated for the same purpose.

9 Plaintiffs are actively involved in organizing public rallies, at which they encourage public support for their cause, present speakers and raise funds to support their political efforts.

10. Plaintiffs wish to conduct a "Hempfest Rally" at the Jacksonville Metro Park on June 17, 2000. This rally is intended to further three objectives: (A) to generate public support for the efforts of Plaintiffs to change the laws of the United States and the State of Florida prohibiting the distribution, sale and possession of marijuana; (B) to educate the public, through the presentation of speakers, to the need for a change in the laws and to provide a form for members of the public to speak out on this issue of national political concern; and (C) to raise funds to support Plaintiffs' continuing political activities.

11 In addition to public speaking and distribution of literature, Plaintiffs intend to present musical acts, many of which incorporate political themes into the music

12. Plaintiffs' activities are political speech, and are fully protected under the First Amendrnent to the United States Constitution.

13. Plaintiffs have held similar "Hempfests" in cities throughout Florida and elsewhere in the Southeast. These events regularly draw crowds of five thousand or more persons.

14. The Jacksonville Metro Park is a public forum. Metro Park has traditionally been the location for political gatherings, rallies and festivals.

15. The City of Jacksonville has adopted and enforces an Outdoor Musical Entertainment: Ordinance codified as Chapter 191 of the Jacksonville Ordinance Code (hereinafter the "Ordinance"). A copy of Chapter 191 is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Complaint.

17. Jacksonville requires that anyone who holds a festival or rally first obtain permission of the City, through a permit issued by the Director of Parks

Sec. 191.103. Festival permit required.

No person shall stage, promote, or conduct any festival in the city without first obtaining a festival permit from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Entertainrnent.

18. Section 191.04 of the Jacksonville Ordinance Code includes an extensive list of requirements which must be met by the applicant, all of which vest unfettered discretion in the hands of the Director of Parks. The Ordinance places no objective limitations or parameters to guide the decisionmaker in determining whether the requisite plans demonstrate "adequate^" sanitation, medical and parking facilities and "adequate security and parking control". [§191.04(a), (b), (c) and (d)]. Furthermore, the Ordinance allows the Director of Parks to condition approval of a permit on the applicant's furnishing "[s]uch other informaticin as the Director may reasonably require, to ensure compliance with the chapter".

19. Section 191.106 of the Jacksonville Ordinance Code sets forth the procedure for granting or denying permits. That procedure specifies that the "Director shall grant or deny the permit within twenty days following the filing of an application". However, the Ordinance does not require the issuance of a permit if the Director fails to make his decision within the 20-day period, nor is their any requirement that the Director notify the applicant of his decision.

20. Exemptions under the Ordinance are subject to the discretion of the Director of Parks who is directed to make his own independent detennination of probable attendance, without any guidelines in the Ordinance itself. See, § 191.110(a).

21. The Ordinance does not provide for judicial review of permitting decisions, prompt or otherwise.

22. Chapter 191 of the Jacksonville Ordinance Code is an unlawful prior restraint on freedom of speech:

A. The Director of Parks may deny pemiits in his unfettered discretion;

B. The Ordinance do not require that a final decision on a permit application within a specified, brief~periol of time;

C. The Ordinance does not provide for prompt judicial review; and

D. The Ordinance does not require the City to initiate judicial review proceedings if an application is denied, nor is the City required to bear the burden of proof in a judicial review proceeding.

(3) An ordinance or law of the city or any other governmental body regulating or prohibiting drugs or narcotics.

28. The Ordinance does not require that the conviction be for a felony or such other crime as may result in the loss of civil rights.

29. The blanket prohibition against issuance of permits to person; convicted of drug crimes is violate of the First Amendment.

30. The sponsor of the Hempfest - CAN - is indigent and has no money to pay for anything other than a nominal fee to offset the cost of processing its application In particular, CAN has no money to pay for any city-imposed services

31. As a condition of obtaining a Festival Permit, the applicant must obtain insurance in the amount of One Million Dollars:

Sec. 191.104. Permit application.

An applicant for a festival permit shall submit the following to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Entertainment at least ninety days prior to the date of commencement of the festival:

(g) A comprehensive automobile-general liability insurance policy or policies, issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in Florida, and having a policyholder's rating of B or better and a financial rating of AA+ or better by Alfred M Best Company, insuring the promoter of the festival, the owner of the festival area and the city and providing it cannot be cancelled without written notice thereof being served on the Director at least fifteen days prior to the date of cancellation. The policy or policies shall be approved by the Office of General Counsel and shall include coverages in the following amounts:

(1) Bodily injury liability insurance of five hundred thousand dollars for one person injured and, subject to that lirnit, one million dollars for more than one person injured in anyone occurrence;

(2) Property darnage liability insurance of five hundred thousand dollars in any one occurrence;

(3) Automobile liability insurance for bodily injury of two hundred fifty thousand dollars for any one person injured and, subject to that limit, five hundred thousand dollars for more than one person injured in any one occurrence, covering all owned, leased and all other classes of non-owned vehicles; and

(4) Property damages liability insurance covering all owned, leased and all other classes of non-owned vehicles in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars for any one occurrence.

33. The requirement of insurance and a performance bond is costly, and has a chilling effect on the right to engage in public issue speech in a public forum.

34. There is no provision in the Ordinance to allow a waive or modification of the insurance requirement for crowds of the size anticipated for he Jacksonville Hempfest.

35. As a condition of obtaining a permit, the applicant must agree to obtain police officers for "security and crowd control":

Sec. 191.104. Permit application.

An applicant for a festival permit shall submit the following to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Entertainment at least ninety days prior to the date of commencement of the festival:

(d) A plan for adequate security and crowd control in and around the festival area, to be approved by the Sheriff, which plan shall include as a minimum at least the following:

1) One police or security officer for each two hundred fifty persons attending the festival;

36. The cost of providing police security has a chilling effect on the right to engage in public issue speech in a public forum.

37. There is no provision in the Ordinance to allow the Director of Parks to waive or alter the police security requirement.

38. An application for a Festival Permit must be filed at least ninety days hefore the proposed event:

Sec. 191.104. Permit application.

An applicant for a festival permit shall submit the following to the Director of Parks, Recreation and

Entertainment at least ninety days prior to the date of commencement of the festival:

39. The 90-day advance notice requirement is an unreasonable restriction on "spontaneous speech."¹

40. Despite the facial unconstitutionality of the subject Ordinance, Plaintiffs actually attempted to obtain a Festival Permit. Plaintiff made the following efforts to obtain a permit:

A. On October 26, 1999, Plaintiff Bledsoe requested that the City reserve Metro Park for May 27, 2000. A copy of that written request is attached as Exhibit "B" to this Complaint. The City neither granted nor denied that request.


B. On November 4, 1999, Plaintiff TACL requested that the City reserve Metro Park for June 3 or June 10, 2000. In addition, Plaintiff alerted the City to a number of constitutional issues raised by the subject Ordinance. A copy of that written request is attached as Exhibit "C" to this Complaint. The City neither granted nor denied that request


C. On January 31, 2000, undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs wrote to the responsible City Attorney requesting a response to the November 4, 1999 inquiry and indicating that litigation may follow if a response was not received. A copy of that written request is attached as Exhibit "D" to this Complaint.
For purposes of this allegation, "spontaneous speech" would be an event called in response to an event of public interest, and an immediate response would not allow for a 30-day advance notice.

D. On April 6, 2000, Plaintiff APLIN requested that the City reserve Metro Park for June 17, 2000. A copy of that written request is attached as Exhibit "E" to this Complaint. The City neither granted nor denied that request.

F. When no action was taken on the pennit application within the twenty days specified by the Ordinance, Plaintiffs' counsel again wrote to the City demanding that a decision be made on the permit no later than Friday, May 19th. Plaintiffs stated that litigation would be required if no decision was made by that time. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit "F' to this Complaint.

F. The City replied by letter dated May 24, 2000, which conditioned any permit on the payment of thousands of dollars for City services, none of which were requested by Plaintiffs and none of which they can afford. The letter did not state when or if a decision had been made on the earlier applications. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit "G" to this Complaint.

41. As of the date of filing this Complaint, the City has failed and refused to issue a festival permit to these Plaintiffs.

42. Section 191.106 of the subject Ordinance specifies that the "Director shall grant or deny the permit within twenty days following the filing of an application."

43. The City's failure to grant or deny the Plaintiffs several applications within the specified period of time violates Plaintiff's First Amendment rights on an "as applied" basis. Furthermore, the City has violated its own Ordinance by failing to respond within the specified time.

44. The subject Ordinance denies these Plaintiffs their rights to freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, all guaranteed by the First Amendrneat.

45. The subject Ordinance includes criminal penalties for persons holding First Amendment events without obtaining the requisite permit. [ORD. §191.1091. Plaintiffs face criminal prosecution should they conduct their Hernpfest Rally on June 17th in the absence of a permit.

46. As a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of Florida, the City and its officials were, and are, acting under color of state law and authority in adopting and enforcing the subject Ordinance

COUNT ONE - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

47. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth in 1-46, and incorporate those facts in this Count by reference.

32. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs' rights to conduct a rally in a public park in the City without having to comply with the City's permitting scheme, as set forth above,

33. Plaintiffs have a right to have this Court declare their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as those rights are restricted by the City's Ordinances. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek a declaration as follows:

A. That Chapter 191 Jacksonville Ordinance Code pertaining to Outdoor Musical Entertainment is unconstitutional on its face and as applied against Plaintiffs;

B. That the Court grant supplemental relief including, but not limited to an award of Plaintiffs' costs and attorney's fees.

COUNT TWO - PERMANENT INJUNCTION

48. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth in 1 - 46, and incorporate those facts in this Count by reference.

49. Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to engage in public issue speech in a public rally in a public forum without being forced to comply with an unconstitutional licensing scheme.

50. Plaintiffs wilt suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court issues a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the subject Ordinance.

51. The harm which would be suffered by the Plaintiffs without an injunction the loss of their First Amendment rights - exceeds any conceivable harm the City would suffer if it were prohibited from enforcing a licensing scheme which is an unlawful prior restraint on free speech.

52. A permanent injunction, prohibiting the enforcement of the City's Policies and Procedures, would not be contrary to the public interest. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for

A. Entry of a permanent injunction forever enjoining Defendant and its various agents and employees from enforcing Chapter 191 Jacksonville Ordinance Code pertaining to Outdoor Musical Entertainment;

B. Entry of a mandatory injunction directing Defendant to issue Plaintiffs a permit to conduct a Hempfest rally at Metro Park on June 17, 2000

C. An award to Plaintiffs of their attorney's fees and costs; and


S. For such other relief as the Court deems proper

Gary S. Edinger, Esquire
Florida Bar Number 606812
305 NE First Steet
Gainesville, Florida 32601
(352) 338-4440 FAX 352-337-0696

Richard L. Wilson, Esquire
Florida Bar No 212997
3610 Dubsdread Cir
Orlando, Florida 32804-3052
(407) 649-9225 (FAX) 423-8727