IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. Criminal Action No. 82-0295 ARTHUR LEE HARRIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. Criminal Action No. 82-0296 WILLIAM THOMAS
parkland. The two men refused to leave and the officers made the promised arrest.
36 C.F.R. § 50.27(a).
that both men had been maintaining a constant presence on the parkland for many days, including sleeping overnight on the White House sidewalk. They were using bedding materials, had personal belongings in the area, and were using plyboard signs and other objects to protect them from the elements. The Magistrate's finding that the men were using the parkland for living accommodations is supported by substantial evidence and will be upheld.
Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 530,536 (1980). To maintain their constant vigils in front of the white House, the men necessarily slept on parkland. Since sleeping on parkland vas necessary to continue their protests, they argue that the regulation prohibiting them from "camping" on parkland violates their First Amendment rights.
(per curiam), established the guidelines for determining whether conduct qualifies as protected speech under the First Amendment. The Court stated that conduct will merit First Amendment protection when it is intended to convey a "particularized message" and under the circumstances it is likely the message will be understood. 418 U.S. at 410-411. By sleeping, Harris and Thomas did not intend to convey a particularized message. Sleeping on parkland was for the men simply necessary to maintain the stamina to sustain a constant vigil. In view of the lack of a "particularized message" in the conduct of sleeping which led to the appellants' arrest, the Court finds that the First Amendment is not implicated in this case.