Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: Richard M. Gutman, Lance Haddix, Chicago, Ill., for Alliance plaintiffs
• Citation: Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 561 F.Supp. 537 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
• Decision Date: 08 April 1982
• Docket Number: 75 C 3295.,No. 74 C 3268,74 C 3268
• Parties: ALLIANCE TO END REPRESSION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.

561 F. Supp. 537

ALLIANCE TO END REPRESSION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.

Nos. 74 C 3268, 75 C 3295.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

March 30, 1982.

Agreed Order, Judgment and Decree April 8, 1982.

Robert C. Howard, Matthew J. Piers, Douglas W. Cassel, Alexander L. Polikoff, Robert J. Vollen, Robert L. Tucker, Chicago, Ill., for ACLU plaintiffs.

Richard M. Gutman, Lance Haddix, Chicago, Ill., for Alliance plaintiffs.

Stanley Garber, Peter Fitzpatrick, Chicago, Ill., for City of Chicago defendants.

                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                            Page
                     Preliminary Statement of Principles ....................................    559
                       Constitutional Protection of Individual Rights .......................    560
                       The Importance of Effective Law Enforcement ..........................    560
                       City Policies Concerning First Amendment Conduct .....................    560
                I.   Permanent Injunction ...................................................    561
                       1.   The Scope of this Judgment; Definitions .........................    561
                            1.1   Applies Only to Investigation Directed Towards
                                  First Amendment Conduct; Great
                                  Majority of Police Activity Not Affected by
                                  this Judgment .............................................    561
                            1.2   "Investigative Activity" ..................................    561
                            1.3   "Directed Toward" .........................................    561
                            1.4   "Incidental References" ...................................    562
                            1.5   "First Amendment Conduct" .................................    562
                       2.   Prohibitions that Apply to All Agencies of the
                            City of Chicago .................................................    562
                       3.   Police Department Investigations ................................    563
                            3.1   Basic Procedures for Investigations .......................    563
                                  3.1.1   Avoidance of First Amendment Information ..........    563
                                  3.1.2   Minimization ......................................    563
                                  3.1.3   Intrusive Methods .................................    563
                                  3.1.4   Authorization .....................................    563
                                  3.1.5   Termination .......................................    563
                                  3.1.6   Security ..........................................    563
                                  3.1.7   Purging ...........................................    564
                            3.2   Criminal Investigations Directed Toward
                                  First Amendment Conduct ...................................    564
                            3.3   Dignitary Protection Investigations .......................    565
                            3.4   Public Gathering Investigations ...........................    565
                            3.5   Regulatory Investigations .................................    566
                            3.6   Intrusive Methods .........................................    567
                       4.   Implementation of this Judgment .................................    568
                       5.   Auditing Implementation and Compliance with
                            this Judgment ...................................................    568
                       6.   Index to Definitions ............................................    569
                II.  Retention of Jurisdiction and Ancillary Matters ........................    570
                       A.   Retention of Jurisdiction .......................................    570
                       B.   Final Disposition of Claims for Injunctive Relief
                            Against City Defendants .........................................    570
                       C.   Ancillary Matters ...............................................    570
                

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONCERNING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF CHICAGO AND THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

GETZENDANNER, District Judge.

These proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are submitted jointly on behalf of the plaintiff proponents of two settlement agreements entered into between all named plaintiffs in the ACLU case, certain named plaintiffs in the Alliance case (hereinafter "the participating Alliance plaintiffs"), and certain defendants in both cases. One settlement agreement is with the City of Chicago and certain of its employees (hereinafter "the City of Chicago defendants") identified in Appendix C to the Agreed Order, Judgment and Decree embodying that settlement which was filed with the Court on June 12, 1981 and a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix I (hereinafter the "City of Chicago Settlement").^* The other settlement agreement is with defendants the Secretary of Defense, Richard Norusis, Thomas Filkins, and Gerald Borman (hereinafter "the Department of Defense defendants"). The proposed settlement with the Department of Defense defendants is embodied in a Joint Motion and Stipulation which was filed with the Court on July 2, 1981, and a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix II (hereinafter the "Department of Defense Settlement").^* The identity of the Alliance plaintiffs who join in the proposed settlements is shown on Appendix A to the City of Chicago Settlement and on Exhibit A to the Department of Defense Settlement. The City of Chicago defendants and the Department of Defense defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to collectively as "the settling defendants."

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. The Cases

1. Alliance to End Repression ("Alliance"), et al. v. City of Chicago, et al., No. 74 C 3268, was filed as a class action on November 13, 1974. American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"), et al. v. City of Chicago, et al., No. 75 C 3295, was filed as a class action on October 3, 1975.

B. Parties

2. The 32 Alliance named plaintiffs, 14 of which are organizations and 18 of whom are individuals, include churches, political groups, civil liberties organizations, and individual political, community, and religious activists.

3. Initial Alliance defendants included officials and employees of the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department. The City of Chicago was added as an Alliance defendant on November 19, 1979.

4. On July 8, 1977, Alliance plaintiffs added as defendants, in their official capacities only, certain federal officials, including the Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), and the Secretary of Defense. On January 28, 1980, Alliance plaintiffs added as defendants the United States Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA.

5. The 24 ACLU named plaintiffs, 10 of which are organizations and 14 of whom are individuals, include community groups, religious groups, civil rights and civil liberties groups, and individual community and political activists, lawyers, journalists and public officials.

6. Initial ACLU defendants included the City of Chicago and various city officials, the Attorney General of the United States and various FBI officials, and the Department of Defense defendants.

7. On December 27, 1979, ACLU plaintiffs added as defendants the United States Department of Justice and the FBI.

8. On August 11, 1981, this Court 91 F.R.D. 182 approved a settlement of all claims against the federal defendants in both cases except claims against the Department of Defense defendants.

C. Jurisdiction

9. Jurisdiction in these cases is asserted on the basis of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, 18 U.S.C. § 2520, and 5 U.S.C. § 552a; and declaratory relief is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

D. Claims

10. Plaintiffs in both cases claim that the settling defendants have conducted surveillance of, and compiled dossiers on, plaintiffs' lawful political and other lawful activities; gathered information about plaintiffs by unlawful means, including warrantless wiretaps and break-ins, unlawful use of infiltrators and informers, and by other unlawful means; disrupted and harassed plaintiffs' lawful activities; and that defendants have committed these alleged wrongs against members of the plaintiff classes, all as part of a continuing course and pattern of alleged illegal conduct.

11. Plaintiffs claim that this alleged conduct violates their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-20, and 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

12. The relief asked for on behalf of the named plaintiffs and plaintiff classes in both cases includes a declaration by the court that the conduct complained of is unconstitutional, and an injunction prohibiting the continuation of such conduct.

13. No damages are sought on behalf of the plaintiff classes in either case. The named plaintiffs ask for monetary damages against certain of the defendants.

14. In both lawsuits the settling defendants denied all allegations of unlawful government intrusions. Except as noted in the following paragraph, no findings of fact have been made by the Court relating to the allegations made against any of the defendants.

15. In connection with motions for sanctions to compel discovery in the Alliance case, the Court held that the plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing as to certain material allegations in the complaint against the City of Chicago defendants, and that these defendants had the burden of showing that they had not engaged in the activities described therein.

E. History of Litigation

16. Both cases have been actively litigated and sharply contested throughout the years since they were filed.

17. The City of Chicago defendants' motion to strike and dismiss the complaint in the Alliance case was denied May 16, 1975. 407 F.Supp. 115 (N.D.Ill.). The motion of def...