United States v. Thomas CR 87-0231

WILLIAM THOMAS: MY QUESTION IS: ON THE OCCASIONS WHEN PARK POLICE CONDUCTED OPERATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEMONSTRATORS WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STORAGE OF PROPERTY REGULATIONS, HOW I FARED.

THE COURT: HOW YOU FARED?

WILLIAM THOMAS: WAS I IN COMPLIANCE OR WAS I IN VIOLATION?

THE COURT: I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC AND BRING HIM DOWN TO THE ALLEGED OFFENSE CHARGED HERE AND PRESENT INFORMATION.

139

WILLIAM THOMAS: I AM TRYING TO ESTABLISH THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THE COURT IS GOING TO BE MAKING REASONABLE INFERENCES IN DETERMINING THIS CASE AND I AM JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH GROUNDS FOR A REASONABLE INFERENCE THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS.

THE COURT: THE QUESTION IS, THOUGH: DID YOU VIOLATE THE REGULATION ON THE DATES CHARGED IN THIS INFORMATION?

WILLIAM THOMAS: THIS IS TRUE.

THE COURT: WHAT DO OTHER DATES HAVE TO DO WITH THIS

WILLIAM THOMAS: TO ESTABLISH GROUNDS FOR A REASONABLE INFERENCE.

THE COURT: I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT,

WILLIAM THOMAS: YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT?

THE COURT: I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FORMING OF YOUR QUESTION, TOO. RESTATE THE QUESTION, "HOW DID I FARE?" RESTATE THE QUESTION.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: WERE WE IN COMPLIANCE ON THE OCCASIONS THAT THE PARK POLICE CONDUCTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS?

THE COURT: WHAT DATES ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT?

WILLIAM THOMAS: WELL, I AM TALKING ABOVE DURING MARCH OF 1987. WE HAVE OTHER TESTIMONY THAT MR. ROBBINS WAS PRESENT DURING MARCH, BUT MR. ROBBINS HAS

140

STATED THAT HE COULDN'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHETHER HE WAS PRESENT IN MARCH.

THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION, MR. ROBBINS?

THE WITNESS: I THINK SO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ARE YOU ABLE TO ANSWER IT?

THE WITNESS: I WILL ANSWER IT IN THIS FASHION DURING THE PAST YEAR, ON THE OCCASIONS THAT I HAVE BEEN UP THERE, MR. THOMAS' DEMONSTRATION SITE HAS GENERALLY NOT HAD A STORAGE OF PROPERTY. HE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE BETTER ONE OF THE DEMONSTRATORS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN LAFAYETTE PARK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: COULD WE BE MORE SPECIFiC AND ASK FOR SOME INSTANCE WHEN I WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE? IF YOU RECALL.

A: I DIDN'T TAKE A CAREFUL LOOK, BUT WHEN I WAS UP THERE THIS PAST WEEK, DURING THE SUMMIT VISIT, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUANTITY OF MATERIALS THAT WERE AT ALL SITES AT THE DEMONSTRATION. WHEN I WAS UP THERE ONCE, THE PEOPLE WERE GONE.

I ASSUME ONE SITE WAS YOURS.

Q: SO YOU CAN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT THERE WAS ANY TIME WHEN I WASN'T IN TOTAL COMPLIANCE? ON THE OCCASION' THAT YOU --

141

THE COURT: DOES THIS DEAL WITH A DIFFERENT REGULATION?

WILLIAM THOMAS: THIS DEALS WITH WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS PERMITTED TO HAVE IN THE PARK WITHOUT HAVING IT TO BE CONSIDERED STORAGE OF PROPERTY.

THE COURT: BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH ANOTHER REGULATION, NOT THE PRESENT ONE.

WILLIAM THOMAS: IT HAS TO DO WITH THE STORAGE OF PROPERTY. IT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT ITEMS ARE -- AN INDIVIDUAL IS ENTITLED TO HAVE WITHOUT RUNNING AFOUL OF THE STORAGE OF PROPERTY.

THE COURT: BUT DOES IT PERTAIN TO THE REGULATION WE ARE DETERMINING IN THIS CASE?

WILLIAM THOMAS: IT PERTAINS TO THE REGULATION THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE

THE COURT: YOU'D BETTER ASK THE WITNESS THAT HE'S THE EXPERT, DOES THAT LETTER HAVE ANY RELEVANCE TO THE REGULATION WE ARE CONCERNED WITH IN THE PRESENT CASE?

THE WITNESS: NO, SIR; IT DOES NOT. IT PERTAINS TO A REGULATION THAT WAS ABOLISHED, I BELIEVE IT WAS TOWARDS THE END OF LAST YEAR, 36 CFR 50.7, WHICH IS NO LONGER A NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REGULATION.

THE COURT: SO IT IS NOT RELEVANT.

143

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. THE ARTICLES WHICH YOU SAY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN HAVE, IF AN INDIVIDUAL HAD THOSE ARTICLES, WOULD IT -- WOULD HE BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION IF HE ONLY HAD THOSE ARTICLES AND THE OFFICER MAY HAVE THOUGHT THE PERSON WAS SLEEPING?

WOULD THAT COMBINATION OF THOSE ARTICLES AND THE OFFICER'S ASSUMPTION THAT THE PERSON WAS SLEEPING CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION?

MR. MINA: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE QUESTION REQUIRES A CONCLUSORY ANSWER.

THE COURT: WE HAVE HIM QUALIFIED TO ANSWER.

MR. MINA: I DON'T BELIEVE HE IS QUALIFIED TO ANSWER A QUESTION BASED UPON THOSE FACTS WHATSOEVER. IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, HE IS ASKING WHETHER OR NOT UNDER CERTAIN FACTS AND GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE REGULATIONS THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION.

THAT IS THE ULTIMATE REGULATION AT ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL. I DON'T THINK HE IS QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: I THINK HE IS. I WILL LET HIM ANSWER HE QUESTION. I AM NOT NECESSARILY BOUND BY HIS OPINION, BUT HE CAN GIVE HIS OPINION.

GO AHEAD. CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: WE HAVE CHANGED THE REGULATIONS AND IT'S HARD --

144

YOUR HONOR, THIS PARAGRAPH LISTS SOME TYPES OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED AND SOME OF THESE THINGS WOULD BE PERMITTED.

THE COURT: SUCH AS?

THE WITNESS: AN UMBRELLA WOULD BE PERMITTED, A RAINCOAT FOR INCLEMENT WEATHER WOULD BE PERMITTED, A THERMOS WITH COFFEE WOULD BE PERMITTED.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: A PIECE OF PLASTIC?

A: THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED UNDER THE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT. WE ISSUED PERMIT CONDITIONS FOR THOSE REGULATIONS WHICH SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES TARPS AND SOME OTHER THINGS. I'D HAVE TO REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION BY LOOKING AT THAT -- THESE PERMIT CONDITIONS, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT A PLASTIC AMOUNTED TO A TARP IT WOULD NO LONGER BE PERMITTED.

Q: REGULATIONS OR PERMIT CONDITION?

A: THESE ARE PERMIT CONDITIONS.

Q: YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE REGULATION HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY A PERMIT CONDITION?

A:THAT'S RIGHT. THE REGULATION WAS ABOLISHED, 50.7 IS NO LONGER A REGULATION ON THE BOOKS. IT'S BEEN ELIMINATED.

Q: IS THERE A REGULATION THAT PROHIBITS A PERSON FROM HAVING A PIECE OF PLASTIC TO KEEP THEMSELVES -- I'M ASKING YOU IS THERE A REGULATION WHICH PROHIBITS A PERSON

145

FROM HAVING A PIECE OF PLASTIC TO COVER THEMSELVES -- I THINK AS YOU SAID IN THAT -- AND THEIR MATERIALS FROM INCLEMENT WEATHER, I THINK YOU SAID?

A: THERE ARE CONDITIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO A REGULATION WHICH IS 36 CFR 7.96, OUR DEMONSTRATION REGULATIONS, WHICH PROHIBIT THE HAVING OF A TARP AND SOME OTHER SIMILAR MATERIALS.

Q: SO YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS NOT A REGULATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I AM SAYING THERE IS A REGULATION THAT PERMITS THE IMPOSITION OF PERMIT CONDITIONS AND THOSE PERMIT CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR ACTIVITIES IN LAFAYETTE PARK AND THOSE CONDITIONS DO ADDRESS TARPS AND SIMILAR ITEMS.

Q: SO YOUR POSITION IS THAT IT IS NO LONGER PERMISSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A PIECE OF PLASTIC TO COVER HIMSELF FROM THE RAIN?

DEPUTY CLERK: EXCUSE ME, MR. THOMAS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: IS IT YOUR POSITION, THEN, THAT IT IS NO LONGER PERMISSIBLE OR IT'S IMPERMISSIBLE OR IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION -- IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION TO HAVE A PIECE OF PLASTIC TO COVER ONESELF FROM THE RAIN IN LAFAYETTE PARK?

A: NO. INSOFAR AS A RAINCOAT IS PERMITTED. AND

146

IS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THOSE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND I AM SPECIFICALLY HANDICAPPED, I DON'T HAVE THEM BEFORE ME.

Q: BUT THESE AREN'T REGULATIONS --

THE COURT: DON'T INTERRUPT. LET HIM GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: IT WOULD BE MY OPINION THAT A PIECE OF PLASTIC THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO A RAINCOAT WOULD BE PERMIT. BUT A PIECE OF PLASTIC THAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A TARP USED TO COVER A LARGE AREA, WHICH WE HAVE HAD IN LAFAYETTE PARK, THAT THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: SO IF A PERSON IS MAINTAINING A VIGIL AND THEY WANT TO COVER THEIR LITERATURE AND THEIR PERSON, THEY CAN'T AFFORD A RAINCOAT PERHAPS, THEY CAN'T COVER THEIR LITERATURE AND THEIR PERSON WITH A PIECE OF 25 MIL PLASTIC SHEET? WHICH IS A THIN PLASTIC, YOU ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH?

THAT WOULD BE IMPERMISSIBLE?

A: NO. A SMALL PIECE OF PLASTIC TO, YOU KNOW, TO WRAP AROUND PAPERS IS NOT PROHIBITED UNDER THOSE PERMIT CONDITiONS,

Q: A SMALL PIECE OF PLASTIC TO COVER A PERSON?

A: AS I MENTIONED, TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT IS TANTAMOUNT TO A RAINCOAT, CERTAINLY THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED AND BELIEVE IT'S ADDRESSED IN THOSE PERMIT CONDITIONS.

147

Q: THIS IS NOT A REGULATION; IS THAT CORRECT? THESE ARE PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?

A: TECHNICALLY, NO. THEY HAVE THE FORCE OF REGULATION AND ARE ENFORCEABLE AS THE REGULATION.

Q: HAVE THEY EVER BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

A: THEY HAVE NOT.

Q: HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY PUBLICATION OF THEM?

A: THEY WERE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE DEMONSTRATING IN LAFAYETTE PARK AND WE PERIODICALLY DISTRIBUTE THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS. AND EVERYONE THAT COMES IN FOR A PERMIT IS HANDED A COPY OF THESE CONDITIONS.

Q: JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, IT IS OR IT IS NOT PERMITTED FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A PIECE OF PLASTIC THAT IS 7 FEET WIDE AND 10 FEET LONG?

MR. MINA: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WE HAVE BEEN OVER THAT AND THAT IS REPETITIOUS AND I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

DEPUTY CLERK: DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS' EXHIBIT NO. 7 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.

(DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS' EXHIBIT NO. 7 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.)

THE COURT: WHY ARE YOU HAVING THIS MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT? I'M REFERRING TO DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 7.

WILLIAM THOMAS: I BELIEVE THE CONTROLLING

148

PRECEDENT IN THIS CASE SHOULD BE THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES V. ABBEY. MR. ROBBINS WAS PRESENT AT THIS HEARING AND MR. ROBBINS, I THINK, CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE COURT'S DECISION, AND THEN I HAVE ANOTHER EXHIBIT.

THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. THIS IS A COLLOQUY APPARENTLY OCCURRING BETWEEN JUDGE RICHEY AND AN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.

WILLIAM THOMAS: BUT IT MAKES REFERENCE TO ABBEY.

THE COURT: THIS CAN'T BE ADMISSIBLE OR RELEVANT IN THIS CASE.

WILLIAM THOMAS: HOW ABOUT THIS ONE?

DEPUTY CLERK: DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS' EXHIBIT NO. 8 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.

(DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS' EXHIBIT NO. 8 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.)

THE COURT: WHAT IS THIS?

WILLIAM THOMAS: THAT'S THE PARK SERVICE'S -- I THINK THAT'S THE PARK SERVICE'S STATED POSITiON WITH RESPECT TO WHEN IMPERMISSIBLE SLEEPING OR WHEN PERMISSIBLE SLEEPING BECOMES IMPERMISSIBLE CAMPING.

THE COURT: THIS IS A PAGE TAKEN OUT OF 703 F.2D 586, THIS IS PAGE 589. THE CASE IS COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE V. WATT.

149

YOU ARE GOING TO CITE THIS PAGE?

WILLIAM THOMAS: JUST THE UNDERLINED SECTION. THE SENTENCE THAT'S UNDERLINED THERE.

THE COURT: WHAT JUDGE WROTE THIS?

WILLIAM THOMAS: THE COURT OF APPEALS.

THE COURT: IS THIS A PART OF THE MAJORITY OPINION

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: -- OF THE COURT OF APPEALS?

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: THIS CASE WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT.

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES, IT DID.

THE COURT: WAS IT REVERSED?

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES, IT WAS. THE RELEVANCY ALSO OF --

THE COURT: YOU, YOU CAN'T USE THAT.

DEPUTY CLERK: DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS' EXHIBiT NO, 9 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.

(DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS' EXHIBIT NO. 9 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.)

THE COURT: THIS IS A LETTER DATED MAY 15 -- REFERRING TO DEFENDANT EXHIBIT 9, A LETTER DATED MAY 15, 1986, TO A MS. WINIFRED GALLANT, 1440 N STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D.C., FROM MR. ROBBINS.

NOW, HOW DO YOU WANT TO USE THIS LETTER?

150

WILLIAM THOMAS: I WANT TO USE THIS AS PROBATIVE EVIDENCE TO THE QUESTION OF SLEEPING.

THE COURT: SPECIFICALLY WHAT PART OF THE LETTER?

WILLIAM THOMAS: THE PART THAT IS CIRCLED THERE ON THE SECOND PAGE.

THE COURT: CIRCLED WITH PENCIL ON PAGE 2?

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK HIM SOME QUESTIONS BASED ON THAT PARAGRAPH IN THAT LETTER.

WILLIAM THOMAS: THANK YOU.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: LET ME PREFACE IT. FIRST, II IS PERMITTED TO CARRY ON A CONTINUOUS VIGIL IN LAFAYETTE PARK, IS IT NOT?

A: YES, 24-HOUR VIGILS ARE PERMITTED IN LAFAYETTE PARK.

Q: AND SLEEPING IS NOT PROHIBITED IN LAFAYETTE PARK, IS IT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IT'S NOT PROHIBITED TO HAVE A BLANKET IN LAFAYETTE PARK, IS IT?

A: I'D HAVE TO DOUBLECHECK THOSE PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT WERE ISSUED. I'M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT A BLANKET PER SE. I KNOW SLEEPING BAGS WERE PROHIBITED. I BELIEVE BLANKETS, LIKE TARPS, MAY ALSO BE PROHIBITED.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU: IS IT PROHIBITED FOR DEMONSTRATORS

151

UNDER THESE PERMIT CONDITIONS TO HAVE BLANKETS, BUT IT IS NOT PROHIBITED FOR THE CENTRAL PUBLIC TO HAVE BLANKETS?

A: I'D HAVE TO CHECK THAT REGULATION ON THAT. ON THE PERMIT CONDITIONS. AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT STORING THOSE MATTERS AS OPPOSED TO CARRYING THROUGH OR HOLDING IN A PARKING LOT.

Q: YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CHECKING THE PERMIT CONDITIONS YOU KNOW, THAT YOU HAVE REFERRED TO IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: I'M ASKING YOU WHETHER IT VIOLATES REGULATIONS FOR A PERSON, LET'S SAY, NOT A DEMONSTRATOR, SOMEONE WHO IS NOT UNDER ANY PERMIT CONDITIONS, IS IT A VIOLATION OF A REGULATION FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A BLANKET OR A SLEEPING BAG IN THE PARK?

A: MERE POSSESSION OF THOSE ITEMS IS NOT PROHIBITED.

Q: IS IT PROHIBITED TO LAY OF THE BLANKET OR SLEEPING BAG IN THE PARK?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT PROHIBITED 10 COVER YOURSELF WITH A BLANKET OR A SLEEPING BAG IN THE PARK?

A: THAT STANDING ALONE, NO,

Q: YOU SAID IN THIS LETTER THAT THE TOUCHSTONE FOR ENFORCING STORAGE OF PROPERTY IS THAT IT NOT EXCEED WHAT MIGHT BE REASONABLY REQUIRED DURING ANY 24-HOUR PERIOD.

A: WHERE ARE YOU READING FROM NOW?

152

WILLIAM THOMAS: NO.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO CONFINE YOURSELF TO THAT. THAT IS WHAT I TOLD YOU TO DO.

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: WELL, STICK WITH THAT.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: I MADE A MISTAKE. BACK TO DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1.

THE COURT: WHAT ARE YOU DOING? AREN'T YOU GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE LETTER WHICH WE JUST DISCUSSED, WHICH WAS DEFENDANT'S NO. 9?

WILLIAM THOMAS: MY MIND IS JUMPING AROUND A BIT.

THE COURT: LET'S GET RID OF DEFENDANT'S NO. 9, IF YOU INTEND TO USE IT AT ALL.

DO YOU INTEND TO USE THAT?

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES, I WILL USE IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DON'T SKIP AROUND. STICK WITH DEFENDANT'S NO. 9 AND ASK HIM WHATEVER YOU WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT THAT CIRCLED PARAGRAPH, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: SHORT-TERM CASUAL SLEEP. WHAT WOULD BE THE TERM? HOW LONG IS SOMEONE ALLOWED TO SLEEP BEFORE HE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION?

A: WE HAVE NOT PUT AN HOUR -- THE CAMPING REGULATION

153

PROHIBITS USING THE PARK OR PARK ARE AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION AREA. AND SLEEP IS BUT ONE INDICIA OF WHETHER A PERSON IS, IN FACT, USING THE PARK AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION.

SO, TRANSFORMING 30 MINUTES OF SLEEP INTO 45 MINUTES OF SLEEP OR AN HOUR OF SLEEP IS NOT PROHIBITED OR ADDRESSED PER SE IN THOSE REGULATIONS, BUT MAY -- IN THE CONTEXT OR LENGTH OF SLEEP IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER ACTIVITY THAT INDICATE THEN BECOME RELEVANT AS ONE OF THOSE INDICIA OF WHETHER THE PARK IS IN FACT BEING USED AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION.

OK. LET'S CONFINE OURSELVES TO THOSE RELEVANT INCIDENCES. IN A RELEVANT INCIDENT WHERE THERE WAS AN ALLEGATION THAT SOMEONE WAS USING THE PARK AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION PURPOSES, HOW LONG WOULD THEY HAVE HAD TO SLEEP BEFORE THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION?

A: WE HAVE NOT SET A NUMBER OF MINUTES REQUIREMENT IN THAT REGARD.

Q: HAVE YOU MADE ANY SUGGESTIONS?

A: WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AS TO -- WITH REGARDS TO THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR THESE TYPE OF CAMPING CASES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS?

MR. MINA: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS LINE OF TESTIMONY IS PRIVILEGED. IT COMES IN UNDER -- IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PENDING CIVIL MATTERS IN THIS DISTRICT COURT INVOLVING

154

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND THE DEFENDANTS.

WE BELIEVE THAT THIS TESTIMONY IS CLEARLY PRIVILEGED AND SHOULD NOT BE INQUIRED ON AT THIS POINT.

WILLIAM THOMAS: I AM ONLY TRYING TO DETERMINE HOW LONG A PERSON HAS TO BE SLEEPING BEFORE THEY ARE CAMPING. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY CIVIL CASE.

THE COURT: ASK HIM THAT DIRECT QUESTION: HOW LONG DOES A PERSON...

MR. MINA: THAT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED YOUR HONOR, THREE OR FOUR TIMES.

THE COURT: LET'S ASK HIM AGAIN.

WILLIAM THOMAS: WELL, HE SAID --

THE COURT: HOW LONG WOULD A PERSON HAVE TO SLEEP IS THAT THE QUESTION? -- BEFORE HE WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE?

WILLIAM THOMAS: I ASKED THAT QUESTION, YES.

THE COURT: I KNOW YOU DID, BUT LET'S ASK IT AGAIN AND YOUR ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: WE HAVE NOT SET A PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF HOURS OR MINUTES YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THERE'S YOUR ANSWER.

WILLIAM THOMAS: HE SAID HE HAD DISCUSSIONS AFTER THAT

THE COURT: WHEN YOU GET INTO DISCUSSIONS,YOU

155

GET INTO PRIVILEGED MATTERS. DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THIS GENTLE MAN AND OTHER OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO FIND OUT?

WILLIAM THOMAS: WELL, I WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT DIRECTIONS OR WHAT SUGGESTIONS HE GAVE TO POLICE OFFICERS WITH RESPECT TO THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAD TO BE SLEEPING BEFORE IT CEASED TO BE PERMISSIBLE CAMPING -- PERMISSIBLE CASUAL SLEEPING.

THE COURT: WHAT DIRECTION OR ADVICE HE MAY HAVE GIVEN TO POLICE OFFICERS?

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ASK HIM.

DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS TO POLICE OFFICERS ON THIS POINT?

THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TOTAL INDICIA OF CAMPING, IT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS ADDRESSED IN THOSE ADVICES; YES, SIR.

THE COURT: DID YOU GIVE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OR WAS THIS JUST GENERAL CONVERSATION?

THE WITNESS: NO, SIR, WE DID NOT SET A SPECIFIC HOUR OR MINUTE ON THE SLEEPING ALONE. NO, SIR.

THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE NOW. YOU DIDN'T SET ANY SPECIFIC HOUR OR TIME.

156

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: WOULD 20 MINUTES BE ENOUGH?

A: UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH OTHER INDICIA OF CAMPING, 20 MINUTES COULD, OR NO SLEEP COULD BE ENOUGH TO MAKE A CAMPING CASE.

Q: NO SLEEP?

A: CERTAINLY. IF A GROUP CAME IN AND STARTED BUILDING FIRES AND COOKING AND SETTiNG UP TENTS OR PUTTING THEIR PERSONAL BELONGINGS IN IT, TAKING SHOWERS, THE LIKE, WE WOULD PROBABLY NOT WAIT TO SEE THEM ASLEEP BEFORE WE TOOK ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

Q: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YOU WERE -- LET ME SHOW YOU DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 4.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THAT?

MR. MINA: MAY I SEE IT, PLEASE?

YOUR HONOR, THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE FEDERAL REGISTER. DOES HE INTEND TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS WITH THIS?

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE INTENDS TO DO. WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO WITH THAT?

WILLIAM THOMAS: I INTEND TO ASK MR. ROBBINS WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT IT.

THE COURT: WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT IT?

DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: WHAT IS IT?

WILLIAM THOMAS: IT'S A COPY OF THE

157

FEDERAL REGISTER FROM JUNE 4TH OF 1982.

THE COURT: 1982?

WILLIAM THOMAS: YES. IT'S THE INITIAL PUBLICATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION.

THE COURT: THE REGULATIONS OF '82, WERE THEY IN FORCE AND EFFECT IN MARCH OF '87?

WILLIAM THOMAS: MAYBE MR. ROBBINS COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

THE COURT: IF THEY WEREN'T, I DON'T SEE HOW THEY COULD BE RELEVANT.

CAN YOU HELP US ON THAT?

THE WITNESS: I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. I DON'T RECALL THE DATE.

WE WENT THROUGH A SERIES OF AMENDING THOSE REGULATIONS AND HAVING THEM ENJOINED AND THEN PUBLISHED NEW REGULATIONS AND I JUST DON'T RECALL, YOUR HONOR, THE PRECISE DATES ON WHEN ALL THAT OCCURRED AS TO WHETHER THOSE IN '82 ARE THE ONES IN FACT IN EFFECT NOW, BECAUSE WE DID GO THROUGH A SERIES OF DIFFERENT REGULATIONS FOR ABOUT A YEAR.

THE COURT: HOW IS THIS GOING TO HELP YOU?

WILLIAM THOMAS: CAN I REPRESENT THAT THESE ARE THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN EFFECT NOW, SINCE MR. ROBBINS CAN'T?

THE COURT: CAN YOU REPRESENT?

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE THE

158
160

Transcript Continued

Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park