Warner v. City of Boca Raton
| Decision Date | 31 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-8054-CIV-RYSKAMP.,98-8054-CIV-RYSKAMP. |
| Citation | 64 F.Supp.2d 1272 |
| Parties | Richard and Miriam WARNER, Souhail Karram, Ian and Bobbie Payne, Carrie Monier, Marie and Louise Riccobono, Emil and Eleanor Danciu, and Joanne Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF BOCA RATON, a Florida municipal corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Charlotte Danciu, Boca Raton, FL, Lynn G. Waxman, James Kellogg Green, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiffs.
John Orrin McKirchy, Boca Raton, FL, Bruce S. Rogow, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Beverly A. Pohl, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
THIS CAUSE came on for trial before the Court and the issues having been duly tried, the Court hereby renders its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In this action, it is alleged that certain Rules and Regulations (the "Regulations") promulgated by the City of Boca Raton (the "City") for the maintenance of its Municipal Cemetery (the "Cemetery") violate the plaintiffs' federal and state guarantees of freedom of religious exercise, freedom of speech and due process of law. A trial on the issues established the following material facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
The City owns, operates and maintains a 21.5 acre Cemetery for its residents. Since 1944, the Cemetery has been located south of Palmetto Park Road, on Fourth Avenue, in Boca Raton, Florida. The Cemetery grounds extend east and west of Fourth Avenue which runs north and south.
The Cemetery is divided into several sections. The oldest section, known as Section A, is located west of Fourth Avenue and contains graves and monuments that were moved from a prior site. The newer sections of the Cemetery are located east of Fourth Avenue.
Purchasers of Cemetery plots1 (the "Plot Owners") receive a Certificate of Ownership which identifies the Plot Owner's interest in the "exclusive right of burial of the human dead in [the plot]." See Def.'s Ex. 7. This interest is subject to the following express limitations:
1. That the burial right herein granted will be used only in conformity with the Cemetery Rules and Regulations as they may be from time to time adopted or amended.
2. That the property herein described shall forever remain under the exclusive control of [the City] for the purposes of care and maintenance.
Id. The purchase and sale transaction does not convey property via a deed nor is the transaction recorded. Moreover, Plot Owners do not pay property taxes on the plots.
The Boca Raton City Council is charged with managing the affairs of the Cemetery. See Boca Raton Code of Ordinances, art. II, § 13-36 (); § 13-43 (). Pursuant to this express authority, the City has promulgated Regulations for the Cemetery which have been incorporated into the City ordinances and which have the effect of law. Id. § 13-37.
In November 1982, the City adopted a Regulation which prohibits vertical grave markers,2 memorials,3 monuments4 and other structures (collectively referred to hereafter as "grave decorations") on Cemetery plots. See Regulations § XIV(2). In particular, § XIV(2) of the Regulations provides:
No memorials, monuments, or enclosures shall be permitted above ground in any section of the Cemetery grounds except in Section `A'.5 Stone or bronze markers are allowed in all other sections provided that they are level with the ground surface.
The horizontal grave marker style adopted by the City in 1982 is known as a "memorial garden" and has become the industry standard for modern cemeteries. The use of horizontal grave markers promotes the City's interests in: 1) making the most efficient use of Cemetery space; 2) ease of access of earth-moving equipment to plots for burial and disinterment purposes; 3) ease of grounds maintenance; 4) ensuring the safety of grounds keepers and visitors; and 5) maintaining a uniform appearance and aesthetically pleasing environment in the Cemetery. The City established that the use of vertical grave decorations would permit fewer grave sites in the Cemetery, impede access to the grave sites, make grounds maintenance more difficult and dangerous for grounds keepers and visitors, and create visual clutter. Most importantly, the use of vertical grave decorations would make it difficult to access and dig graves with the large machinery used by the City for this purpose. Although the City could avoid this problem by digging graves by hand, this practice would be more dangerous because of the risk that the ground would collapse on the grave diggers.
In 1988, the City adopted a Regulation which granted the Cemetery Manager the discretion to make temporary exceptions and modifications to the Regulations. See Regulations § XVI(1). In particular, Section XVI(1) of the Regulations provides:
(1) Exceptions and Modifications— Special cases may arise for which the literal enforcement of any rule may impose unnecessary hardship. The Cemetery Manager, after consultation with the Recreation Services Department Director, reserves the right to make temporary exceptions, suspensions and modification [sic] of any rule or regulation, when in the Cemetery Manager's discretion such modification seems advisable. Such temporary exceptions, suspensions and modifications shall in no way be construed as effecting [sic] the general enforcement of these rules and regulations nor as eliminating the authority of the City Council in approving or disapproving all permanent changes in rules or policies of the Cemetery/Mausoleum.
The named plaintiffs are all residents of the City who have purchased plots in the Cemetery. Between 1984 and 1996, the plaintiffs decorated the graves of family members and loved ones with standing statues, crosses, stars of David, ground covers and borders in violation of the Regulations.
It is undisputed that the plaintiffs placed vertical decorations on their Cemetery plots in observance of sincerely held religious beliefs.6 Several of the plaintiffs erected vertical decorations in observance of their Jewish faith. For example, plaintiff Richard Warner and his mother plaintiff Miriam Warner placed ground cover and edging stones on their family members' graves in observance of a Jewish tradition that grave sites are to be protected and never walked upon. Plaintiffs Ian and Bobby Payne placed a standing star of David and grave coverings on their son's grave in order to identify their son as Jewish and to protect the grave from being walked upon.
Additionally, several of the plaintiffs erected vertical grave decorations in observance of their Christian faith. For example, plaintiff Souhail Karram placed a standing cross on his wife's grave because he believes that Jesus Christ was crucified on a standing cross and rose again, and, therefore, the standing cross symbolizes that his wife will also rise again. Plaintiff Carrie Monier placed a vertical statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus as well as a rope around her brother's grave because she believes graves should be protected and never walked upon. Carrie Monier's sister, plaintiff Barbara Cavedoni placed a standing cross on her loved one's grave site because the crucifixion and death of Christ has for centuries been depicted on a standing cross and, therefore, in her view, it would be disrespectful to honor and pray to a horizontal cross. Plaintiff Marie Riccobono decorated her father's grave with a statue of Jesus to watch over him and surrounded the grave marker with edging blocks and stone. Plaintiff Joanne Davis memorialized the grave of her infant son with a two-foot high bronze statue of two children playing, with small crosses and with a statue of Jesus holding a child. Finally, plaintiff Eleanor Danciu believes the statues of the Blessed Mother and St. Francis which decorate her parents' graves are her channels of prayer to God.
In August 1991, the City sent notices to Plot Owners who had placed vertical decorations on their plots requesting that the plots be brought into compliance with the Regulations within thirty days. Plot Owners were informed that if they did not comply with the City's request, the City would remove the noncomplying structures. This communication created some controversy, and a minority of Plot Owners failed to comply with the City's request.
A second notice requesting compliance with the Regulations was sent in July 1992. Plot Owners were advised that after 15 days, any remaining vertical decorations would be removed and held for a 10-day period and then disposed of if not claimed. Again, not all Plot Owners complied with the City's request
Those who objected to the enforcement of the Regulations voiced their views to the City Council which agreed to postpone removal of the vertical decorations pending further study. On August 17, 1992, the City Manager's office issued a memorandum which stated in pertinent part that:
City staff will not be moving forward with the removal of memorial items from grave sites at this time. Instead, staff will be re-evaluating the existing ordinance to determine if any modifications should be made. A complete analysis of the ordinance and its impact will be accomplished prior to any such activity. [emphasis in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock
...F.3d 419, 440 n. 45 (9th Cir.2008); Knight v. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Health, 275 F.3d 156, 167 (2nd Cir.2001); Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 64 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1288 n. 12 (S.D.Fla.1999); Littlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch. Dist., 108 F.Supp.2d 681, 704 (N.D.Tex.2000); see also Lukumi, 508 U.S. a......
-
Jackson v. City of Stone Mountain, 1:00-CV-1075-JEC.
...omitted). In short, the Government is not required to permit all forms of speech on property that it controls. Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 64 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1290 (S.D.Fla.1999) (citing International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 120 L.Ed.......
-
McTernan v. City of York, Pa
...based upon a misreading of Smith, 494 U.S. at 881-82, 110 S.Ct. 1595, aff'd 268 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2001)); Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 64 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1288 n. 12 (S.D.Fla.1999) (finding hybrid rights language in Smith to be dicta); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and ......
-
Pahls v. Thomas
...private citizen's interest in controlling the use of his own property justifies the disparate treatment”); Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 64 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1291 (S.D.Fla.1999) (“[T]he government has broader power to regulate expression on public property [than on private property].” (citing......
-
RLUIPA at four: evaluating the success and constitutionality of RLUIPA'S prisoner provisions.
...(C.D. Cal. 2002) (same); McBride v. Shawnee County, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1101 (D. Kan. 1999) (same); Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 64 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1284 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (same); Al-Amin v. City of New York, 979 F. Supp. 168, 171 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (same); Blanken v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. an......