Supervisor: Dormant Ordinance Still Needed for 'Public Safety'

RIVERSIDE - An anti-picketing ordinance championed by Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone and opposed by free speech proponents remains as valid today as when it was enacted more than five years ago, according to Stone, even though the law has apparently not been used since its inception.

County Ordinance No. 884, which bars protesting closer than 30 feet from a person's residence, was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 3, 2009. The measure mandates fines and possible jail time for anyone convicted of violating it.

According to the sheriff's department, over the 65-month period ending Sept. 1, there is no record of a citation being issued or an arrest being made based on the anti-targeted residential picketing law.

''It's the same type of an ordinance that many counties and cities surrounding us utilize,'' Stone told City News Service. ''Ours is much more liberal. It gets you very close to where you want to be.''

The ordinance was debated during hearings that spanned nearly four months. Stone initially argued in favor of a 300-foot buffer zone to keep demonstrators away from a target's residence, noting that the city of Riverside and San Diego County both had anti-picketing ordinances with 300-foot limits.

The supervisor also referenced Palm Desert, though its ordinance requires a 100-foot boundary.

All the measures rely on a 1988 Supreme Court case that found no First Amendment impediment to restricting neighborhood picketing.

Stone's original ''motivation'' for proposing the ordinance was to ensure security and peace at the Church of Scientology compound near San Jacinto. The 700-acre mixed-use facility, known as Golden Era, had been the site of multiple demonstrations by members of Anonymous, an international group that accuses the church of human rights violations.

Stone presented unsourced material portraying Anonymous as a hate group and voiced the need to strike a reasonable balance between the freedom to demonstrate and the freedom to practice one's religion in one's own way. Along with the Golden Era protests, he mentioned aggressive anti-Proposition 8 demonstrations creating disturbances, though he never referred to a specific instance in Riverside County.

Stone ran into resistance to his proposed 300-foot buffer and later modified it to 50 feet, ultimately settling on 30 feet after gaining the support of his colleagues, including the late Supervisor Roy Wilson, who backed the ordinance after receiving assurances that demonstrators would continue to be able to protest on the perimeter of church property.

Only former Supervisor Bob Buster voted against the measure, repeatedly stating that 884 was an unjustified infringement on freedom of speech and there were no ''compelling'' reasons to implement it.

Critics alleged Stone was currying favor with the church, whose cause was represented during board hearings by Temecula attorney Sam Alhadeff, a contributor of thousands of dollars to Stone's campaigns, according to election disclosures.

''I've been dealing with Mr. Alhadeff for 22 years as an elected official, going back to my time at the Temecula City Council,'' Stone told CNS. ''He has represented or opposed probably over 200 issues or projects. But just because Mr. Alhadeff has given to my campaign over many, many years does not mean I'm beholden to him for anything. I've actually gone against him on major issues.''

The supervisor was unconcerned that the anti-picketing law had not been employed once, asserting it remains a good means of securing a ''public safety corridor (of) 10 to 15 feet'' between demonstrators and those being targeted.

''That was done purposefully so that, in the event we had large crowds and something got out of control, there would be a way for police, ambulance crews or firefighters to get in there, do their job ... and resolve the situation,'' he said.

He called the 300-foot buffers still in place in other jurisdictions ''an infringement of your First Amendment rights.''

Sheriff's officials offered no explanation why the county's anti- picketing measure had not been applied. A possible clue may lie in a September 2009 sheriff's report stating that penal code provisions had been ''more appropriate'' than Ordinance 884 in circumstances where protesters were detained.

Norco resident Julie Waltz, who in 2010 prevailed in a lawsuit to halt a state investigation of her demonstrations against a group home next door to her, has steadfastly called for a repeal of 884.

''The First Amendment gives us the right to protest; there are no boundaries in the First Amendment,'' she told CNS. ''We didn't need this ordinance to begin with. But Mr. Stone does whatever suits him at the moment. Never mind that he's supposed to uphold the Constitution.

''We live on First Amendment rights. Our voice to protest freely and openly is all we have. Lose that, and you lose everything.''

Waltz hoped there was an outside chance a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June might yield a successful legal challenge to 884. The High Court ruled unanimously in McCullen v. Coakley that a Massachusetts law barring abortion foes from coming within 35 feet of Planned Parenthood clinics to hand out leaflets or speak to patients ''imposed serious burdens'' on free speech that were unwarranted.

Dr. Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar and founding dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, told CNS it's doubtful McCullen will have any bearing locally.

''A 30-foot buffer zone could only be challenged if it was found not to be sufficiently narrowly tailored,'' he said. ''I can't speak to whether the ordinance in Riverside County was necessary. But it's likely constitutional.''

Los Angeles attorney Graham Berry, a Scientology critic who has joined protests at Golden Era, lambasted 884 as ''bad law.''

''Bad laws shouldn't remain on the books,'' Berry said, adding that Stone's ordinance had a ''chilling effect'' on some protesters and a ''motivating effect'' on others. He could not recall any protests outside the church compound since 2012, and a church spokeswoman told CNS that demonstrations had been a ''non-issue'' for years.

''Things kind of calmed down out there,'' Stone said. ''That's probably a good thing. But we welcome people to protest in our county.''