Getting (or Fighting) a Restraining Order Against a Neighbor

Intro to Civil Harassment:  When Neighbors Go Bad

California law allow individuals who have been the victims of harassment to seek the protection of a restraining order.  There are specific types of restraining orders and special procedures depending the relationship of the parties -- coworkers can file for "workplace violence" restraining orders, family members and exes can seek "domestic violence" restraining orders, etc.  Today, I want to specifically discuss restraining orders between neighbors.

Restraining order cases that arise between neighbors are usually based on allegations of "civil harassment" (rather than workplace or domestic violence).  Restraining orders that are based on civil harassment are cleverly called "Civil Harassment Restraining Orders".  They are filed and heard in the local branch of the superior court that is closest to where the parties live and where the harassment is alleged to have occurred.

To get a restraining order against a neighbor in California, the petitioner (the person who is seeking protection) must prove that he or she has been the victim of actual violence, credible threats of immanent violence, or "harassment".  The petitioner bears the burden of proving the case by "clear and convincing evidence".  "Clear and convincing" is a higher burden than the "preponderance of evidence" standard that applies in most civil cases (and lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that applies in criminal cases).  It means what it sounds like -- the petitioner must present enough evidence to clearly convince the judge that the alleged harassment has occurred.

If the judge finds in favor of the petitioner, he or she can order the respondent to stay a specific distance away, not to contact the petitioner by any means (including over the internet, by phone, etc.), and to stop doing whatever the court finds to constitute "harassment".  Those orders can also protect other individuals who live with the petitioner, and even pets.

Harassment, Defined

Everyone knows what "violence" and "threats" mean, but "harassment" causes a lot of confusion.  In restraining order court, the judge is looking for something more than just behavior that irritates or annoys you, no matter how irritating or annoying that behavior might be.  The legal definition of "harassment" is:

• a course of conduct (not just a single act), 
• which is directed AT a particular person (not just some behavior that affects the petitioner),
• which serves no lawful purpose (more on this below),
• which would cause a reasonable person to suffer distress, and
• which does actually cause the petitioner to suffer distress. 

That means the conduct in question must be something that your neighbor has done TO you, not just something your neighbor has done that AFFECTS you.  A good example is illegal parking.  Your neighbor might violate every single ordinance in the book by constantly parking his cars illegally.  Maybe he leaves inoperable vehicles on the street for weeks at a time, leaking oil everywhere.  This conduct might affect you because it creates an eyesore and because your guests have nowhere to park.  It might even cause you to "suffer distress", but it is not directed AT you.  Since your neighbor is not doing anything TO you, illegal parking is not the basis for a restraining order.  You may have other remedies (e.g. calling the police or Code Enforcement, etc.), but a restraining order is not appropriate here, no matter how much your neighbor's illegal parking bothers or annoys you.  The same is true for neighbors who smoke on their own property, let their lawns grow 3 feet high or who build bonfires that aggravate your asthma.  Those things might be code violations and they might cause you to suffer distress, but they're not "harassment" because they're not targeted AT you.  

What about a neighbor who constantly calls the police to report every perceived infraction?  I'm talking about the nervous old lady who reports "loud parties" at 7:30 PM -- I'm talking about the self-appointed "neighborhood watchman" who has Code Enforcement on speed dial, like Wyatt Earp of the cul-de-sac.  What can be done if you've become the target of one of these vigilantes?  Unfortunately, not much, at least not in restraining order court.  Remember, to constitute "harassment", the conduct must serve "no lawful purpose".  Calling the police to report some perceived offense is a lawful purpose, even if that conduct is directed at you and it causes you to suffer distress.  The judge will never order someone to stop calling the police.  Eventually, the police might tell them to stop calling, or they might simply stop responding.  If the police determine that someone is filing reports that they know to be false, they can pursue criminal charges against the caller.  Again, though, a restraining order is not the appropriate remedy here.

Scope of Orders, and Their Limits

The court has wide power to "enjoin" (legally prohibit) someone from doing all sorts of things that it deems to be "harassment".  As mentioned above, the judge can order someone to stay away from you, your home, your workplace, your vehicle, your school, your children's school, your children's daycare, and any other place where the judge finds that harassment is likely to occur.

The respondent can be ordered not to contact you by any means, directly or indirectly.  That includes in person, by phone, text, mail, etc.  That even includes asking someone else to pass along a message to you, except through an attorney.

If the respondent violates any of those orders, he or she can be arrested for "contempt of court".  If some other person knows about the restraining order and helps the respondent violate it (by passing along an apology, for instance), that person can also be arrested.

The judge cannot, however, order someone to stop talking about you if you're not present.  If someone is spreading false, defamatory information about you, you may have a lawsuit against that person, especially if you can prove that you've actually been harmed by the lies.  Again, though, a restraining order is not the appropriate remedy.

Restraining Orders and Firearms

If a restraining order is granted, even temporarily, the respondent will be ordered to immediately surrender any firearms under his control to the local police or to a licensed firearms dealer.  The State Department of Justice will notify the court if the respondent has any firearms registered in his name, and whether or not those weapons have been accounted for.

If the DOJ's records indicate that the respondent may have guns that have not been surrendered, agents will visit the respondent's home and perform a "knock and talk".  Inspectors might ask about specific weapons, and they might ask permission to search the premises for the missing firearms.  The respondent is not obligated to let them in unless agents present a search warrant.  (NOTE:  Generally, any adult who is present at the time can give agents consent to a search.  If the husband refuses and the wife allows it, for instance, then agents have consent.  Make sure your family members understand this, and NEVER GIVE CONSENT TO A SEARCH!!!)

If the respondent / homeowner refuses to allow agents to search his or her home, and inspectors believe he is illegally in possession of firearms, inspectors might take their evidence to a local judge and request a search warrant.  The governor recently granted more funding to these regional teams of DOJ investigators.  They're going door-to-door daily, gradually clearing a backlog of "prohibited persons" and missing firearms.

If you are served with a restraining order and you are required to surrender your firearms, call our office to discuss your options.  If your weapons have great sentimental value, you may be able to legally transfer them to a friend or family member.  If they have great financial value, you may also be able to sell them for their fair market value.  You may also be permitted to store them for a longer period if you expect to recover them later.

Free Attorney Consultation

If you or a loved one has problems with a neighbor, or questions about restraining orders in general, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Fullerton Restraining Order Lawyer

Religious Use of Marijuana

There is a pervasive and persistent myth that, somehow, claiming "religious use" is a valid, legal defense to the charge of operating an unlicensed marijuana dispensary.  It is not.

It's frustrating to see decent people taking bad advice and getting themselves arrested.  It's especially frustrating in a place like California, where marijuana is legal.  California currently allows adults to cultivate and possess marijuana for recreational or medical use.  If you follow some simple rules, you can even sell it.  Unfortunately, some shady attorneys, charlatans and various non-attorney posers have been spreading the myth that "rules don't apply to you if you simply pretend that it's your religion."  This is, of course, total nonsense.  As a real attorney, I would strongly discourage anyone from relying on this argument.

Just think about it.  If anyone could successfully disregard the law by simply claiming that XYZ was part of their "religion", what would stop them from founding the Church of Child Pornography?  Or the Church of Bank Robbery?  

Most of the confusion revolves around a pair of federal laws -- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Incarcerated Persons Act.  These laws prohibit the federal government from taking any action that "substantially burdens" the free exercise of religion unless authorities can show some compelling interest in doing so.  The RLUIPA further prohibits local authorities from imposing land use restrictions that interfere with the free exercise of religion.  Some advocates have argued that, taken together, these federal laws provide carte blanche to ignore local zoning laws regarding commercial marijuana activity as long as they call their dispensary a "church".

Courts have consistently shot these arguments down.  Instead, they have affirmed the power of local zoning authorities to regulate commercial marijuana activity, regardless of whether or not litigants claim that cannabis is a "sacrament".  Their reasoning has turned on a couple key points.  Keep in the mind that no court has ever ruled that religion is an absolute defense to anything.  The state can always "interfere with the practice of religion" if the regulation is narrowly tailored to address some compelling government interest.  

In Mooney v. Lynch (2016), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a challenge from the Oklevueha Native American Church.  In that case, a "church" sued the federal government, claiming that laws against marijuana interfered with the free exercise of their religion.  Judges disagreed because, "nothing in the record demonstrated that a prohibition on cannabis forced the plaintiffs to choose between obedience to their religion and criminal sanction, such that they were being coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs."

To date, nobody has ever convinced a federal judge that laws against selling marijuana actually impose a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of their religion.  There have been a handful of cases in which Native American churches have won lawsuits against the federal government, but those cases turned on technical, procedural issues.  The courts did not actually determine that Native American religious practices trump federal drug laws, and the rulings do not affect other litigants who were not parties to those cases.

As I mentioned above, though, there are legal ways to grow, use and sell marijuana in California -- but claiming that cannabis is a "sacrament" is not your best strategy.  If you or a loved one has questions about forming a legal marijuana farm or dispensary in Southern California, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Fullerton Marijuana Lawyer

Send an Offensive Text Message, Lose Your Gun Rights

Many of my clients are shocked to learn how quickly a rude or offensive text message can cost them their gun rights in California.  Don't make that mistake.  Before you hit "send", think about what you're willing to sacrifice.

California has a very permissive system of issuing restraining orders, especially in cases of alleged domestic violence -- and the definition of "domestic violence" in California is expansive.  The court will issue a restraining order when the petitioner can prove "by a preponderance of the evidence" (a very low burden) that the respondent has "harassed" him or her.  "Harassment" includes some behavior that we might not consider to be "abuse" or "domestic violence" within the conventional meanings of those terms.  Harassment in California includes any course of conduct, directed at a specific person, which serves no lawful purpose, and which would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress.

"Harassment" in restraining order hearings often includes rude, offensive or insulting text messages or emails.  Calling your ex-girlfriend a "bitch" in a text message may be the grounds for the court to slap you with domestic violence restraining order, even if you never hurt or threatened anyone.  In many cases, a judge may find that an insulting text message meets the definition of "harassment", described above.

A judge can also issue a domestic violence restraining order when one party has sent repeated, unwanted messages to an ex.  Depending on the circumstances, sending annoying text messages may constitute "harassment".  The messages don't even have to be rude or insulting. If your ex-girlfriend has asked you to stop calling or texting, you are legally obligated to respect her wishes.  If you continue sending her unwanted messages, she may take those screen shots to court and get a restraining order against you.

Anyone who is the subject of a restraining order in California must immediately surrender all their firearms to the local police, or else sell them to a licensed gun dealer.  You may not simply "sell" your collection to a friend or have a family member hold your weapons.  You also may not buy, possess or even have access to firearms while the restraining order is in effect.  If you're a hunter, collector or target shooter, you may be legally barred from enjoying your hobbies for up to 5 years.

The laws and procedures regarding restraining orders in California are complicated. If you or a loved one has questions about the process, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Orange County Restraining Orders

Is Civil Disobedience a Defense to Criminal Charges?

With everything in the news these days, there's been a lot of talk about "civil disobedience", free speech, the right to protest, and the 1st Amendment.  Before you get yourself arrested, please take a moment to read this article.  Make sure that you understand your rights and, more importantly, the limits of those rights.  Then call my office.

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech.  The government may (almost) never punish you simply for expressing an unpopular opinion.  The content of your speech is virtually sacrosanct under American law, no matter how offensive.  In this country, you are free to deny the holocaust or to make racially offensive slurs.  You might lose friends or even your job, but the state may not sanction you for saying stupid things. 

The time, place and manner of your speech is another story, though.  The government may constitutionally restrict when, where and how you express yourself, as long as they have a good reason to do so.  The police may not arrest you simply for yelling, "F*ck the police!", but they absolutely may arrest you if you scream it repeatedly late at night in a residential area (or if you torch a police car, block an intersection, disrupt traffic, damage property, etc., even if those actions are political speech).

So turn out, protest, make signs, and yell whatever you want.  But please don't block the freeway or light anything on fire.

If you choose to engage in some civil disobedience, be advised that "civil disobedience" is not a defense to criminal charges.  The term "civil disobedience" was coined in the middle of the 19th Century by Henry David Thoreau.  Thoreau had served a night in jail for refusing to pay a tax, in protest of the Mexican-American War.  He was a staunch opponent of the war and of slavery.  In his famous essay, Thoreau argued that men have a moral responsibility to resist unjust enactments, and to break the law if necessary.  He also emphasized, though, that they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their unlawful behavior.  Thoreau willingly served his time in jail and he never argued for lenience or claimed that his actions were protected by the 1st Amendment.

If you or a loved one has questions about civil disobedience or the 1st Amendment, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Fullerton Criminal Defense Attorney

The First Amendment as a Defense to Drug Charges?

If you haven't already, please check out the columns I've been contributing to thekindland.com. The entire archive is available under the "Ask a Weed Lawyer" section.

My latest post for The Kind Land is scheduled for publication on Valentine's Day (2/14/16).  In it, I discuss "freedom of religion" as a possible defense to drug charges.  This is an area that has generated a lot of popular mythology and bad information.  Many people believe that the First Amendment's protections for the "free exercise of religion" grant them total immunity against prosecution for any activity that is central to their religious beliefs.  Unfortunately, this is not true. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the US Constitution does not entitle individuals to disregard generally applicable criminal laws.  Sorry, Rastafarians.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

But there are a couple federal laws that, taken together, make this analysis more interesting.  First is the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", which was signed into law in 1993.  That law prohibits the US government from taking any action that "substantially burdens" the free exercise of religion, unless the government can prove 2 important things: 1) that the feds have some "compelling" interest to protect, and 2) that the government's action in question is the least intrusive means for protecting that interest.

Keep a couple things in mind, though.  The RFRA is not a constitutional amendment, it is a federal law.  That means that it does not apply against the states; it only applies to actions taken by the federal government.  States and local governments are still free to "substantially burden" the exercise of your religion.  Also, the RFRA does not grant blanket immunity to do anything that you claim is part of your religion.  Instead, it establishes a balancing test.  If you claim that some federal law infringes on your religious beliefs, then the courts must weigh that infringement against the government's legitimate interest in protecting public health and safety.  If the government's interest is found to be "compelling", and its actions are "the least intrusive means" for protecting that interest, then you still lose.

The Religious Land Use and Incarcerated Persons Act

Enacted in 2000, the federal RLUIPA takes the RFRA one step further.  It prohibits cities and local governments from making any laws regarding zoning or land use that substantially burden the practice of religion.  Up until now, most of the litigation around the RLUPIA has involved eminent domain cases -- whether or not a city may seize church land to build a new housing development or airport.

What does this have to do with marijuana?  Glad you asked.

The Oklevueha Native American Church, a group that claims over 200 local branches, has recently announced plans to open several new locations in Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Westminster.  Members of the church use peyote, marijuana and other hallucinogens to "commune with nature" as part of their religious beliefs.

The church will operate out of buildings that formerly housed marijuana dispensaries.  Church leaders have stated that they intend to distribute marijuana to their members, in violation of local zoning laws.  It is not clear whether or not the church intends to distribute other controlled substances and whether or not it will restrict marijuana sales to members who hold valid medical recommendations.

Spokesmen for the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa have publicly stated that they intend to enforce their existing zoning laws.  An attorney for the church has threatened to bring a federal lawsuit under the RLUIPA if the cities' land use regulations interfere with his clients' right to freely exercise their religion.

We're all excited to see how this plays out.

If you or a loved one has questions about drug charges in California, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Drug Lawyer

Resisting Arrest in California: PC 148(a)(1)

Section 148(a)(1) of the California Penal Code makes it a misdemeanor to resist, obstruct or delay the police while an officer is trying to do his job (or, "attempting to perform some lawful duty").  Basically, this code section makes it a crime to waste a cop's time.  If a police officer feels that you are making his job more difficult or time-consuming than necessary, PC 148(a)(1) gives him the authority to cite you or take you to jail for the evening, even if you haven't done anything else illegal.

"Resisting arrest" is a misnomer because you can be arrested for PC 148(a)(1), even if you weren't even under arrest until you began bothering the officer.  My clients tell me all the time, "I can't be guilty of resisting arrest, because I wasn't under arrest until I was arrested for resisting arrest".  Unfortunately, this law encompasses all sorts of behavior that "obstructs or delays" police while they attempt to perform their duties.  Cops and prosecutors will argue that the law includes behaviors which are merely annoying or inconvenient to police (talking back, refusing to identify yourself, getting in the way, creating a distraction, etc.).

Just because you were arrested for 148(a)(1) doesn't necessarily mean that you are guilty of any crime.  There are many possible defenses to the charge.  If police overstepped their legal authority, for example, then they were not "lawfully attempting to perform their duties", and you are not guilty of "obstructing or delaying" them.  Police frequently use PC 148(a)(1) arbitrarily to bully anyone who merely annoys them or who engages in free speech that they don't like.

If you or a loved one is accused of resisting, obstructing or delaying a police officer in violation of PC 148(a)(1), call our office for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Resisting Arrest Lawyer

Can I Legally Film the Police in California?

Update:  Gov. Brown signed SB 411 into law on 8/11/15.  This bill specifically states that the act of filming police in public is not illegal and should not be the basis for arresting or detaining a person.  SB 411 does not create any new rules, but merely affirms and restates existing law.  For more information, click here.  

The simple act of filming police while they perform their official duties is protected by the First Amendment. The recent proliferation of cheap, ubiquitous video cameras has had a major impact on the way police do their jobs.  Cops know that any contact with citizens can quickly go viral on the internet, for good or for bad. Police are more likely to act professionally when they know that they will be held accountable for their actions.  So film away, post it to Youtube, get a million hits and become an internet celebrity.  If the cops give you any shit, tell them I said it was OK. 

The right to film the police has been consistently affirmed by the courts, most recently in the case of ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (2012).  There, the ACLU successfully won an injunction to prevent enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping statute.  The law prohibited any recording of any conversation unless all parties consented to the recording, regardless of where the conversation occurred or whether the conversation was clearly audible to the public.  The ACLU regularly monitors police activity in Chicago to deter and document official misconduct.  They argued that the Illinois law unconstitutionally prohibited them from documenting public conduct, thereby infringing upon their right to free speech.  The Federal Appellate Court agreed.  

People get themselves into trouble, though, when "filming the police" becomes "interfering with police".  As discussed above, you have a right to document the cops.  In fact, please do.  You do not have a right, however, to waste their time.  Police are paid by the hour.  Their salaries come from our taxes.  When you waste the cops' time, you waste everyone else's tax dollars.  That being said, you may not delay, obstruct or interfere with official police conduct in any way.  When you stick a camera in a cop's face, believe me, he is itching for a reason to take you to jail. Section 148(a)(1) of the California Penal Code gives him the authority to do so if he believes that you are making his job more difficult or more time-consuming than necessary.  

I spoke with a few current police officers (who wish to remain nameless) while researching this piece.  I got the impression that each of them understood and respected the constitutional right to film official public conduct. Like most people, though, cops do not appreciate anyone making their jobs more difficult than necessary. Unlike most people, these guys carry both guns and badges. Piss off a fry cook and you might get a loogie in your hamburger.  Piss off a cop and you might BE a hamburger.  Here are some helpful tips that they offered for anyone who wants to film the police without being beaten and thrown in jail:

-Do not interfere with their official duties.  The rest of these rules are basically different ways of reiterating this first commandment. 

-Stay out of their way.  They need space to do their jobs.  If you crowd them, them will "feel threatened", and we know what happens when cops "feel threatened" (see previous posts re: Kelly Thomas).  

-Don't ask them a bunch of questions while they are trying to work.  Don't complain about how they're doing their jobs, and don't tell them that they're using excessive force.  Document it, get it on film, and complain to their supervisors later, but always remember the first rule.  

-If you intentionally provoke the police, don't be surprised if you get the reaction that you're looking for.  Maybe have someone else hold the camera for this part.  

If you or a loved one is hassled for filming police (or arrested for interfering / resisting), call my office at (714) 449-3335 for a free consultation.  Ask for John.  

Good luck out there and thanks for reading.  Remember, don't give the cops anything to do.

Orange County Resisting Arrest Attorney

Free Speech Protections and Their Limits

Since the recent raids on various "Occupy" protests around the country, there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding "free speech" rights and their limits.  Protesters have been demanding a platform to express their views on economic injustice.  Private property owners have complained about unauthorized usage of their open spaces.  The Los Angeles City Counsel has grappled with conflicting interests of fostering free expression vs. fostering the lawn around City Hall.  Meanwhile, the guy in the picture above apparently won some kind of medal, presumably for his bongo skills. 

All of these competing interests have led to the obvious question: where and how do the protections of the 1st Amendment come into play?  This post will attempt to shed some light onto that issue.  As always, the following post is intended as a very cursory outline of free speech rights and the limits of those rights.  This should not be read as an academic study of the legal issues involved and I would caution any lawyers and law students against citing to this article. 

We all know that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution ensures that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, these prohibitions have been extended to all levels of state and local government, not just Congress.

While the text of the 1st Amendment reads like a blanket prohibition against any type of restrictions on free expression, it has not been interpreted that way by the courts.  Obviously, some types of speech can be prohibited or limited.  Blasting a car horn in a residential neighborhood at midnight to protest against water rate hikes, burning crosses on people's lawns to intimidate them, making criminal threats and lying on your taxes, for example, are all prohibited forms of expressive conduct.

Other types of reprehensible speech are plainly protected.  Courts have upheld the right of the Ku Klux Klan to march through the predominantly Jewish community of Skokie, IL.  Individuals in the US are free to tattoo their own faces with swastikas (this would be illegal in most parts of Europe).  Profanity is also protected (except on broadcast TV and radio, but that's another issue).  In the famous case of Cohen v. CA (403 U.S. 15), the court upheld a man's right to wear a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" emblazoned across the back.  We're also free to lampoon our elected leaders and flip the middle finger to the police.

So where do we draw the line between protected and unprotected speech?  Put very generally, the validity of speech restrictions turns on whether, by prohibiting certain expressive conduct, the government is essentially trying to silence an idea or whether they are attempting to place reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of that speech.  The first step in any free speech analysis is to determine what exactly the government is trying to control: is it the idea itself or merely the manner in which the idea is being expressed?

When the government is attempting to silence an idea because the idea itself is inflammatory or offensive, any restrictions on that speech are going to be ruled unconstitutional almost every time.  No matter how ugly a particular idea might be, the Framers of the Constitution intended for the value of that idea to be judged by the People themselves rather than by the State.  That's why citizens are free to wave signs that say "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for IEDs".  No matter how stupid you might look engaging in these activities, the State has no right to silence your message.

On the flip side, the government MAY take reasonable measures to regulate the time, place and manner of expressive conduct.  As mentioned above, you definitely have a right to protest against water rate hikes, but you may not do so by blasting your car horn at midnight in the middle of my neighborhood.  The city may require permits for parades and demonstrations as long as those permits are issued without regard to the message of the demonstration.  They might allow parades on certain streets at certain times of day and deny permission for parades on other streets in the middle of the night, as long as those rules are applied neutrally to everybody. 

This brings us to the "Occupy" protests.  Protesters have demanded the right to pitch tents overnight on public and private property while they raise awareness to economic disparities and various financial issues of public import.  Local governments have tried (with mixed success) to evict the protests by citing laws against urban camping.  Protesters have argued that their free speech rights are being trampled, and police have countered by arguing that tear gas burns like hell.

So who has the 1st Amendment on their side in the "Occupy" fight?  That depends on whether the government is (A) suppressing an idea, or (B) enforcing reasonable rules regarding the time, place and manner of expressive conduct.  In my eyes, the real question is whether or not the act of sleeping in a tent on a public sidewalk has expressive value in itself.  If so, what message is being expressed by sleeping in these camps?  If protesters were forbidden from sleeping in public, are other alternative channels available for protesters to express the same ideas?  I don't have the answers to these questions, but I would invite readers to share their opinions in the "comments" section, below.