pirate radio arguments LEGAL DEFENCE

http://www.freeradio.org/legal/fccdefense.pdf

airwaves are owned by the people

Confronting the FCC and Defending Your Micropower Station From Being Shut Down
Everything is going great with your micropower station, and then comes that knock on the door - an FCC agent
or two demanding to inspect your station. What do you do ? In response to this Free Radio Berkeley IRATE has
prepared this legal defense packet to answer that question and prepare you for that dreaded knock.
A number of stations have merely folded their tent and gone silent in response to the first visit or letter from
the FCC. This is a result of folks not knowing their rights and responding from a position of fear not strength. When you
know your rights, prepare ahead of time, and respond in a proactive manner you will assure the continued operation
of your station for months if not years after the first FCC visit.
First, the FCC will does not do very well when it comes to public relations. Its agents are not trained to deal
with the media. Anything you can do to put them in the media spotlight will usually be to your advantage. Every time
the FCC makes a move against your station send a press release to the media. In this release succinctly state your
case and frame it as a First Amendment issue. Highlight the ever increasing concentration of media resources into
fewer and fewer hands and how this prevents all but the wealthy and powerful from having a voice.
Be certain that everyone associated with the station knows their rights and wonít freak out at the presence of
the FCC. Included in this packet is ìWhat to do when the FCC Knocksî. Make copies of this for everyone to read and
keep. Post it in your studio. Before you even begin broadcasting find an attorney who will be on call if you need legal
assistance. No one should use their real name on the air or identify themselves to the FCC. Without any legal names
it is much more difficult for the FCC to proceed legally.
Usually the course of events is as follows. You will receive a letter from the FCC taking notice of your operation.
Sometimes the letter will be presented as part of their visit to your station. This letter will state that if your persist in
unlicensed operations you will be subject to possible fines or jail. In order to either collect a fine or begin criminal
proceedings the FCC has to present their case to a Federal court. Despite fines being assessed against a number of
people they have yet to go to court in order to collect the fines since this would open their process to possible Constitutional
scrutiny. Likewise for the criminal proceedings as well. So far there have only been only one or two instances
of actual criminal prosecution.
It is important to defend your station in a militant manner. Included in this packet is the ìPledge of Resistance
Formî. As a Free Speech voice your station should be serving the community in such a manner that your listeners feel
it is a valuable resource worth defending. Circulate this pledge and get as many signers as possible. When you have
gotten at least 100-200 signers send out a press release stating that x number of people have agreed to physically
defend the station, include a copy of the form. This will put the FCC on notice that they will not have easy job. Building
a sense of solidarity and creating a strong alliance with your community is very important.
Threats and intimidation are the FCCís main means of shutting down stations. If those tactics fail they may
obtain a seizure order from a Federal judge. This is done in a secret hearing without any opposing counsel representing
your station being present. With such an order the FCC can literally bust down the door if necessary with Federal
Marshals and take your equipment. In order to counter that threat the National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic
Communications has crafted the legal documents that will be required by your attorney to file suit against the
FCC in an attempt to prevent the possible seizure of your equipment. This legal action challenges the Constitutionality
of the FCCís seizure authority. Once you receive your first letter from the FCC you have legal standing to file suit in
Federal District Court. It is important that as many micropower stations as possible do this. First, if accepted by the
court, it will take months and months for the wheels of justice to turn - it took the FCC 4 years to finally get an
injunction against Free Radio Berkeley. Secondly, it will tie up the legal resources of the FCC which is a rather small
agency which must take up the time of an attorney from the local Federal Attorneys office every time they engage in a
new legal case. Imagine the consequences from the FCC having to respond to dozens of these suits being filed.
Winning your suit knocks out the immediate seizure authority and forces the FCC to go through a series of administrative
procedures before any further legal action can be undertaken. Even not winning buys months of time. And, of
course, you can appeal your case to the Federal Appeals Court adding many more months to the process.
Taken as a whole strategy these steps will greatly increase not only the survivability of your station but will also
do much to further strengthen the micropower broadcasting movement. For further information check the following
web sites: freeradio.org - nlgcdc.org - radio4all.org - 368hayes.com. Contact Free Radio Berkeley IRATE (International
Radio Action Training Education) directly if you any have any questions: frbspd@crl.com or 510-549-0732.
Stephen Dunifer - Free Radio Berkeley IRATE, 1442 A Walnut St., PMB 406, Berkeley, CA 94709
Micropower
Broadcasting Free
Speech Pledge of
Resistance
In defense of the Free Speech rights of
micropower broadcasting, I pledge to, in a
non-violent manner, use my body to block
any effort by any agency to shut down a
micropower broadcast station within my
community. I understand that I may risk
arrest and subsequent legal consequence
for my defense of Free Speech Rights.
Signed:
____________________________________________
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Micropower
Broadcasting Free
Speech Pledge of
Resistance
In defense of the Free Speech rights of
micropower broadcasting, I pledge to, in a
non-violent manner, use my body to block
any effort by any agency to shut down a
micropower broadcast station within my
community. I understand that I may risk
arrest and subsequent legal consequence
for my defense of Free Speech Rights.
Signed:
____________________________________________
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
WHAT TO DO WHEN THE FCC KNOCKS ON
YOUR DOOR
Produced by the Committee on Democratic Communications -- A National
Committee of the National Lawyers Guild
NOTE: The following discussion assumes that you are not a licensed
broadcaster.
Q) If FCC agents knock on my door and say they want to talk with me, do I have to answer their questions?
A: No. You have a right to say that you want a lawyer present when and if you speak with them, and that if they will
give you their names, you will be back in touch with them. Unless you have been licensed to broadcast, the FCC has
no right to "inspect" your home.
Q) If they say they have a right to enter my house without a warrant to see if I have broadcasting equipment, do I have
to let them in?
A: No. Under Section 303(n) of Title 47 U.S.C., the FCC has a right to inspect any transmitting devices that must be
licensed under the Act. Nonetheless, they must have permission to enter your home, or some other basis for entering
beyond their mere supervisorial powers. With proper notice, they do have a right to inspect your communications
devices. If they have given you notice of a pending investigation, contact a lawyer immediately.
Q) If they have evidence that I am "illegally" broadcasting from my home, can they enter anyway, even without a
warrant or without my permission?
A: They will have to go to court to obtain a warrant to enter your home. But, if they have probable cause to believe
you are currently engaging in illegal activities of any sort, they, with the assistance of the local police, can enter your
home without a warrant to prevent those activities from continuing. Basically, they need either a warrant, or probable
cause to believe a crime is going on at the time they are entering your home.
Q) If I do not cooperate with their investigation, and they threaten to arrest me, or have me arrested, should I cooperate
with them?
A: If they have a legal basis for arresting you, it is very likely that they will
prosecute you regardless of what you say. Therefore, what you say will only
assist them in making a stronger case against you. Do not speak to them
without a lawyer there.
Q) If they have an arrest or a search warrant, should I let them in my house?
A: Yes. Give them your name and address, and tell them that you want to
have your lawyer contacted immediately before you answer any more questions.
If you are arrested, you have a right to make several telephone calls
within 3 hours of booking.
Q) Other than an FCC fine for engaging in illegal transmissions, what other
risks do I take in engaging in micro-radio broadcasts.
A: Section 501 of the Act provides that violations of the Act can result in the imposition of a $10,000 fine or by imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year, or both. A second conviction results in a potentially longer sentence. If you
are prosecuted under this section of the Act, and you are indigent (unable to hire an attorney), the court will have to
appoint one for you.
Q) Are there any other penalties that can be imposed upon me for "illegal broadcasts."
A: Under Section 510 of the Act, the FCC can attempt to have your communicating equipment seized and forfeited for
violation of the requirements set forth in the Act. Once again, if they attempt to do this, you will be given notice of
action against you, and have an opportunity to appear in court to fight the FCC’s proposed action. Realize, though, that
they will try to keep your equipment and any other property they can justify retaining until the proceedings are completed.
You have a right to seek return of your property from the court at any time.
Q) If the FCC agents ask me if I knew I was engaged in illegal activities, should I deny any knowledge of FCC laws or
any illegal activities?
A: No. You will have plenty of time to answer their accusations after you have spoken with an attorney. It is a separate
crime to lie to law enforcement officials about material facts. Remain silent.
Q) If I am considering broadcasting over micro-radio, is there anything I can do ahead of time to minimize the liklihood
of prosecution?
A: Yes. Speak with an attorney before you are approached by law enforcement to discuss the different aspects of
FCC law. Arrange ahead of time for someone to represent you when and if the situation arises, so that you will already
have prepared a strategy of defense.
Q) What can I do if the FCC agents try to harass me by going to my landlord, or some other source to apply pressure
on me?
A: So long as there is no proof that you have violated the law, you cannot be prosecuted or evicted. If there is evidence
of misconduct, you might have to defend yourself in court. Depending upon what the FCC said or did, you might
be able to raise a defense involving selective prosecution or other equivalent argument. If the conduct of the agents is
clearly harassment, rather than a proper investigation, you can file a complaint with the F.C.C. or possibly a civil action
against them.
Q) If I want to legally pursue FCC licensing for a new FM station, what should I do?
A: It isn’t the purpose of this Q and A sheet to advocate or discourage non-licensed broadcast operations. A person
cited by the FCC for illegal broadcasting will find it virtually impossible to later obtain permission to get a license. If you
want to pursue the licensing procedure, see the procedures set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Part
73. The application form (Form # 301 A) is extremely complicated, and requires a filing fee of $2,030.00. If you want
to contact the FCC directly, call them at their Consumer Assistance and Small Business Division, Room 254, 1919 N
St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20554, tel (202) 632-7260. Don’t bother to try this without significant financial backing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_________ DISTRICT OF ____________
____________ ) Case No.
)
Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR
) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
· against - ) PROHIBITING EX PARTE
) SEIZURE OF MICRO
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ) BROADCAST EQUIPMENT
)
Defendants. ) Date:
) Time:
________________________________________) Location:
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, respectfully allege on
information and belief as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action is brought on behalf of persons and
organizations engaged in, or seeking to engage in, "microradio"
(low-power radio) broadcasting in _______ City ("City").
Plaintiff ________ is an unincorporated association of persons
who have collectively operated a microradio station in the City’s
_____________ district since ____________, providing an important
outlet for individuals and community groups to share their views
and disseminate local news and information. Broadcasting at _____
megahertz on the FM dial with only __ watts of power, _________
has developed a significant listening audience among local
residents and community groups who tune in to the station because
they cannot otherwise find local news and information on events
of relevance to their daily lives on the radio dial.
2. Plaintiff radio station does not cause interference
with any other signals.
3. Plaintiff ________ sues on their own behalf and on
behalf of their members. The individually named plaintiffs either
produce or present programming broadcast over _________ or listen
to the broadcasts of _________.
4. Plaintiff ________ has neither applied for nor obtained
a broadcast license from the FCC. An application for such a
license would have been an exercise in futility, since the FCC no
longer issues broadcast licenses to noncommercial, educational FM
radio stations operating at less than 100 watts of power.
Moreover, even if the FCC were to issue broadcast radio licenses
to FM radio operating at less that 100 watts of power, Plaintiff
_______ simply could no afford the enormous sums necessary to
secure a broadcast license from the FCC.
5. Even though Plaintiffs lack a broadcast licenses from
the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), they do not regard
themselves as radio "pirates." Instead, they claim a First
Amendment right to speak over the electromagnetic spectrum
dedicated to radio broadcasting --an electronic public forum of
virtually unlimited character --subject only to reasonable time,
place and manner regulations that are even-handedly applied to
all broadcasters, full-power and low-power alike. Plaintiffs
maintain that the present regulatory scheme for radio
broadcasting, codified in Title III of the Communications Act of
1934 (the "Act"), as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., on its
face and as applied to microradio stations, violates their right
to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
6. On [date], Plaintiff ________ received a letter from
the FCC [or verbal warning] stating that the FCC would have
Plaintiff's broadcasting equipment seized if Plaintiff did not
immediately cease and desist its broadcasting.
7. In its letter [or during this visit], the FCC made no
mention of Plaintiffs statutory right under Section 312(c) and
(d) of the Communications Act to an oral hearing, up to 30 days’
notice, at which the FCC would have the burden of proof. 47
U.S.C. §§ 312(c), (d).
8. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
enjoining the FCC and United States Government from closing their
microradio station or otherwise obtaining an ex parte order
permitting the seizure and confiscation of their broadcasting
equipment and otherwise interfering with their microradio
broadcasts without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard on
the issue of why an Order permitting the seizure of their
microradio station equipment should not issue.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This case arises under the First, Fourth, and Fifth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 47 U.S.C. §§
301, 307, 309, 312, and 510. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346(2), 2201, and 2202. The Court may
grant declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment
Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"). The Court may grant injunctive
relief pursuant to FRCP Rule 65.
10. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York,
the federal judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred, the
organizational plaintiffs are headquartered, and the individual
plaintiffs reside. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(e)(2) and (3), and
1402(a)(1).
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff __________ ("___") is an unincorporated
association of persons who have collectively operated a
noncommercial microradio station in the _________ District of
________ since ____________. Plaintiff _______ is entirely
supported by contributions from its members, who collectively
purchased and own the station's broadcasting equipment.
Plaintiff ____ receives no corporate or other private or public
funding. None of ______'s members, its producers or DJs, receive
any remuneration for their work with the station. _______ brings
this complaint for injunctive relief on its own behalf and on
behalf of its members through the DJs named below as individual
plaintiffs, each of whom is authorized to bring this lawsuit on
behalf of the association and its members.
12. Plaintiff DJ _________ is a pseudonym for a citizen of
the United States who resides in the ________ District of
________, is a member of Plaintiff _______, and hosts the program
____________, a weekly talk, philosophy, and music show broadcast
over _______'s microradio station.
13. Plaintiff ________ is a citizen of the United States
who resides in the community of ______, in the _______ District
of _______. Ms. _________ regularly listens to Plaintif _____'s
microradio broadcasts and depends on those broadcasts for current
news and information about her neighborhood and community.
14. Defendant FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ("FCC") is
the agency of the United States that has principal responsibility
for administering the Act. The FCC has final authority to decide
whether to bring administrative proceedings for violations of
Title III of the Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. The FCC may also
request that the Justice Department civilly and/or criminally
prosecute violations of Title III, or otherwise seek an ex parte
Order from this Court permitting the seizure of Plaintiff's
microbroadcasting equipment.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15. The FCC has several ways in which to proceed against
unlicensed radio stations, two of which are at issue in this
action. First, under Section 312(b), the FCC may order a
microradio station such as STR to "cease and desist" its
unlicensed broadcasts. 47 U.S.C. § 312(b). Before the FCC may
issue a cease and desist order, however, the agency must serve an
"order to show cause" on the station, which:
shall contain a statement of the matters with respect to
which the [FCC] is inquiring and shall call upon [said]
station to appear before the [FCC] at a time and place
stated in the order, but in no event less than thirty days
after the receipt of such order, and give evidence upon the
matter specified therein; except that where safety of life
or property is involved, the [FCC] may provide in the order
for a shorter period.
47 U.S.C. § 312(c). At the required hearing, the FCC has the
burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the
burden of proof. 47 U.S.C. § 312(d).
16. Second, any broadcasting equipment knowingly used in
violation of the Act may be seized by the Attorney General and
forfeited to the United States upon process issued pursuant to
the supplemental rules for certain admiralty and maritime claims
by any district court of the United States having jurisdiction
over the equipment. 47 U.S.C. §§ 510(a)-(b); see also
Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims,
Rule B. As applied here, these "in rem" rules provide for seizure
of a microradio station’s expressive instrumentalities and
materials, including broadcasting equipment, without any prior
judicial determination as to whether the station was engaging in
protected expression.
The Decline in Local Radio Programming
17. Over the last decade, a number of factors have
contributed to a significant decline in local radio programming
heard on licensed broadcast radio stations. They include the
FCC’s deregulation of licensed broadcast radio stations in the
1980’s; the increased concentration of radio station ownership in
recent years; the decline in the already abysmally low levels of
minority ownership of radio stations; the resurgence of
nationally delivered network radio programming; and, of course,
the FCC’s rule requiring new noncommercial educational FM radio
stations to operate with at least 100 watts of power.
18. In 1996, Congress lifted the nationwide ceiling on the
number of radio stations which any single person or entity could
own. Since then, roughly 4,000 of the nation’s 11,000 radio
stations have been traded, with the largest station group owners
being the most aggressive buyers. As a result, the radio industry
has become significantly more concentrated over the past two
years. The 10 largest group owners today control 1,134 radio
stations, up from 652 in 1996.
19. The recent wave of mergers in the radio industry has
been accompanied by a marked decline in the already abysmally low
minority ownership of broadcast stations. The United States
Department of Commerce recently reported that only 2.8% of all
commercial radio and TV stations were owned by minorities in
1997, down from 3.1% in 1996.
20. Even though African Americans today comprise more than
10% of the population in the United States, only 42 of the
roughly 1,600 public radio stations in the United States are run
by African Americans, just seven of which had qualified for
community service grants from the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting to buy and upgrade equipment and facilities, as of
several years ago.'
21. Beginning in 1978, the FCC has required all new educational,
noncommercial FM radio stations to operate with at least 100 watts of
power and relegated existing 10-watt stations to "secondary" status,
forcing them to relocate to other frequencies and/or locations if
they interfere with full-power broadcast station signals. See 47
C.F.R. §§ 73.209, 73.211 (1998); Changes in Rules Relating to
Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations, 69 F.C.C.2d 240
(1978) ("Second Report and Order"), modified, 70 F.C.C.2d 972 (1979).
The 100watt requirement for new educational, noncommercial stations
was adopted by the FCC under its "public interest, convenience and
necessity" mandate, ostensibly to ensure more "efficient" and
"effective" educational, noncommercial FM radio service. See, e.g.,
Second Report and Order, 69 F.C.C.2d at 248.
22. The FCC’s rule requiring new noncommercial, educational
FM radio stations to operate with at least 100 watts of power,
adopted in 1978 (see ¶ 21 supra), has been a significant
contributing factor to the decline in local radio programming by
community radio stations.
The Growth of Microradio Stations and the FCC’s Crackdown
23. Microradio developed in response to the dearth of
community programming on licensed radio stations in the 1990’s.
There are today perhaps 1,000 microradio stations operating well
below 100 watts of power in the United States. None of these
stations have broadcast licenses from the FCC, nor can they
obtain such licenses. (See ¶ 21 supra.) The great majority of
these microradio stations currently operate without interfering
with the broadcasts of licensed radio stations or posing a threat
to public safety. Most of these unlicensed microradio stations
provide community programming, including core political speech,
thus restoring localism to the medium of radio. (Attached as
Exhibit A are copies of recent articles on the nationwide
emergence of microradio stations over the past decade.)
24. Rather than expeditiously acting to license microradio
stations so that the "public convenience, interest, [and]
necessity" will be better served, 47 U.S.C. § 307(a), the FCC has
instead intensified its efforts to shut down such stations, at
the urging of the National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB"),
the commercial broadcast industry’s trade association, which has
lobbied the FCC "to rid the airwaves of radio pirates."
25. To shut down microradio stations, the FCC has
increasingly relied on the "in rem" procedures available under
Section 510 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 510 and Rule B of the
Supplemental Rules, allowing for seizure of a microradio
station’s broadcasting equipment without affording the station a
hearing on its First Amendment defense either before or after the
seizure. See, e.g., United States v. Any and All Radio Station
Transmission Equipment, Etc., 976 F. Supp. 1255 (D. Minn. 1997).
26. The FCC has also demanded --orally and in writing --that
microradio stations cease and desist from broadcasting, without
first affording them an oral hearing, upon 30 days’ notice, at
which the FCC has the burden of proceeding with introduction of
evidence and burden of proof, as required by Sections 312(c) and
(d) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 312(c)(d). (Attached as Exhibit __
is a copy of one such "cease and desist" letter.)
27 Finally, some FCC officials have acted to shut down
microradio stations by any means necessary to accomplish the
task, regardless of their basis in law. (See Exhibit __
detailing recent seizures, including 1998 Florida seizures of
microbroadcasting equipment by FCC accompanied by heavily armed
SWAT Teams).
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS
28. The trend toward consolidation of radio station
ownership is also apparent in [community] where an increasing
number of local radio outlets are now owned by a few only
specific broadcast owners. [CITE EXAMPLES WHERE POSSIBLE]
29. It is in this tightly controlled radio environment that
Plaintiff _______ was formed in approximately [date] by a group
of community activists who were dissatisfied with mainstream
media coverage of important issues facing their local community.
30. From the outset, Plaintiff 's goal was not only to fill
the void in media coverage on local community issues, but also to
provide an outlet for other local news, information, and music of
interest to community residents who have long been ignored by
mainstream media in the City. The moniker "_____________" was
selected to signify that Plaintiff operates a community based,
local microradio station using a portion of the spectrum
dedicated to radio broadcasting --spectrum that had been off-limits
to new community radio stations since 1978. (See ¶ 21 supra.)
31. Plaintiff ________ began broadcasting in the _________
community on [date] over the frequency ____ Mhz on the FM dial,
selected by Plaintiff because it was a vacant channel with no FM
radio station in __________ broadcasting on a frequency any
closer than .2 Mhz on either side. Plaintiff broadcasts at ____
watts of power, allowing its signal to be heard by approximately
______ people, who live or work within a radius of ____ mile of
Plaintiff's transmitter.
32. Plaintiff's microradio station quickly developed a
significant listening audience, largely comprised of community
residents who tuned in to hear news and information about their
neighborhood or to listen to music not played anywhere else on
the radio dial.
33. Plaintiff has neither applied for nor obtained a
broadcast license from the FCC. An application for such a license
would have been an exercise in futility, since the FCC no longer
issues broadcast licenses to noncommercial, educational FM radio
stations operating at less than 100 watts of power. (See ¶ 21
supra). Moreover, even if the FCC were to issue broadcast radio
licenses to FM radio stations operating at less than 100 watts of
power, Plaintiff, like virtually every other microradio station
across the country, simply could not afford the enormous sums
necessary to secure a broadcast radio license from the FCC.
34. From its initial broadcast through the present,
Plaintiff has not received any complaints that its broadcasts
were interfering with reception with any other radio station in
the community. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, there has
never been a formal complaint of radio interference filed with
the FCC or any other administrative entity against Plaintiff.
35. Although Plaintiff openly broadcast almost daily from
its fixed studio in a building in [location] from [date] through
[date], the FCC never once contacted Plaintiff prior to [date] to
discuss either Plaintiff's unlicensed broadcasts or any alleged
interference those broadcasts posed to other radio stations.
36. However, on [date], an FCC official [name] visited the
building from which Plaintiff _____ broadcast. When a member of
Plaintiff __________ asked the FCC official as to the purpose of
his visit, he replied that __________. At that time, the FCC
official stated that he would returnMarshals to seize Plaintiff's
radio broadcasting equipment if Plaintiff did not immediately
cease and desist its broadcasting.
37. Although warning Plaintiff to immediately cease and
desist its broadcasts on [date], the FCC official made no mention
of Plaintiff's statutory right under Section 312(c) and (d) of
the Communications Act to an oral hearing, upon at least 30 days’
notice, at which the FCC would have the burden of proof. 47
U.S.C. §§ 312(c), (d). Indeed, the FCC official implied that
Plaintiff had no rights at all. [The FCC official left nothing
in writing during his visit.]
IRREPARABLE INJURY
38 All of the plaintiffs engaged or seeking to engage in
microbroadcasting are suffering ongoing irreparable injury to
their First Amendment rights because the Act’s broadcast license
scheme and the FCC’s enforcement of that scheme have deterred
them from engaging in speech activity that is protected by the
First Amendment.
39 Plaintiffs ____________ are suffering ongoing
irreparable injury to their First Amendment rights because the
Act’s broadcast license scheme and the FCC’s enforcement of that
scheme, have interfered with their right to receive information
and ideas and be informed about public issues.
40 Absent interim injunctive relief, there is an imminent
threat that the FCC will seek an ex parte order from this Court
to shut down Plaintiff ______'s microradio station, confiscate
its radio equipment, and prosecute Plaintiff's members civilly or
criminally.
41 Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(System of Formal Prior Restraints)
42. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations
contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if restated herein.
43. Section 510 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 510, as applied by
defendants to microradio stations, violates plaintiff’s rights to
freedom of speech, security from unreasonable searches and
seizures, and due process of law under the First, Fourth, and
Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution to the extent
that it provides for the seizure and forfeiture of expressive
instrumentalities and materials, including radio broadcasting
equipment, without the rigorous procedural safeguards
constitutionally mandated to minimize the risk of prior restraint
on protected expression, prevent unreasonable searches and
seizures, and ensure due process of law.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(System of Informal Prior Restraints)
44. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations
contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if restated herein.
45. The FCC’s enforcement policy and practice of demanding --
orally and/or in writing --that microbroadcasters immediately cease
and desist all broadcasting activities, without complying with
the rigorous procedural safeguards constitutionally mandated to
minimize the risk of prior restraint on protected expression,
prevent unreasonable searches and seizures, and ensure due
process of law violates plaintiffs’ rights under the First,
Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of Section 312)
46. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations
contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if restated herein.
47. The FCC’s enforcement policy and practice of demanding --
orally or in writing --that microradio stations immediately cease
and desist all broadcasting activities, without first affording
them an administrative hearing, upon at least 30 days’ notice, at
which the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence
and burden of proof are on the FCC, violate Sections 312(c) and
(d) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 312(c), (d).
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court
enter a judgment:
A. Declaring that, on its face and as applied to
microradio stations, Section 510 of the Communications Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. § 510, violates plaintiffs’ rights under the
First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Section 312(c) and (d) of the Communications
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 312(c), (d);
B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining
defendants, and their officers, agents, employees and successors,
from obtaining an Ex Parte Order authorizing the seizure of
Plaintiffs’ microradio stations, confiscating their broadcast
equipment, or otherwise interfering with their microradio
broadcasts without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard on
the issue of why an Order permitting the seizure of their
microradio station equipment should not issue.
C. Awarding plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2412 et seq. ;
and
D. Granting such other and further relief as to the Court seems
just and proper.
Dated:
_____________________________
(Signature of
Attorney)
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM AN EX PARTE SEIZURE OF
BROADCASTING EQUIPMENT BY THE FCC . . . . . . . . . . .
A. The Plaintiffs Engaging In Microradio
Broadcasting Will Suffer Irreparable Injury
Absent A Preliminary Injunction . . . . . . . . .
B. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed On The Merits
of Their Constitutional Challenges To
Defendants’ Enforcement Procedures of the Act. . .
1. Ex Parte Seizure of Plaintiff’s Expressive
Instrumentalities is Prohibited Under the
Fourth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Section 510 of the Communications Act
Deprives Plaintiffs of Their Liberty and
Property Interest Without Due Process of
the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Precludes the FCC from Bringing a Motion For
Ex Parte Seizure Without First Issuing a
Cease and Desist Order under Section 312 of
the Communications Act . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Plaintiffs Claims Present Fair Grounds For
Litigation And The Balance Of Equities Is
Decidedly In Their Favor . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE
UNITED STATED SUPREME COURT CASES
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963)
Calero-Toledo et al. v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.,
416 U.S. 663 (1974)
Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977)
Elrod v. Bruns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)
Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570 (1952)
FCC v. ITT World Communications, Inc., 466 U.S. 463 (1984)
Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989)
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972)
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973)
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)
Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979)
Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961)
Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1975)
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago,
211 U.S. 306 (1908)
A Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964)
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES continued
PAGE
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) . . .
Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 (1948)
Secretary of State of Maryland v. Munson Co., Inc.,
465 U.S. 947 (1984).
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975)
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al.,
510 U.S. 43 (1993)
United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1986)
Village of Schaumberg v. Citizens for a Better Environment,
444 U.S. 618 (1980)
Virginia State Bd. Of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens
Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 756 (1976)
Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co.,
379 U.S. 411 (1965)
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT CASES
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CASES
STATE COURT CASES
STATUTES
4
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiffs ________ respectfully submit this memorandum of
law in support of their motion for a temporary and preliminary
injunction. The court should issue a temporary and preliminary
injunction against an ex parte application for seizure of
Plaintiffs broadcasting equipment by the Federal Communications
Commission [hereinafter "FCC"]. The FCC has threatened to seize
Plaintiffs broadcasting equipment without affording them prior
hearing to challenge the seizure. Such seizure will violate
Plaintiffs rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments
and Section 312 of the Communications Act [hereinafter "Act"].
47 U.S.C §312 (date).
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief enjoining the government
from closing their microradio station, confiscating their
broadcasting equipment, and otherwise interfering with their
microradio broadcasts unless and until a pre-deprivation hearing
is granted.
Further, Plaintiff’s request that the Court issue an order
refusing application for ex parte hearing by the FCC unless and
until the Plaintiffs are provided with an equal opportunity to
be heard.
5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs operates {x radio station}, an unlicensed
microradio station at x watts of power. The FCC regulatory
scheme currently precludes the licensing of stations that
operate under a radiated power of 100 watts i.e. microradio. 47
C.F.R. @ 73.211(a). Even though Plaintiffs lack a broadcast
license from the FCC, Plaintiffs claim a First Amendment right
to speak over the electromagnetic spectrum dedicated to radio
broadcasting. 1
X Radio Station was formed to provide the community with an
outlet for (local news, information, music) that was ignored by
mainstream media in the city. (Here, describe the radio
station’s programming, and how and why it came on the air and
its value to the community)
FCC’s present enforcement procedures in regard to
unlicensed microradio stations will deny Plaintiffs a predeprivation
hearing to determine whether they are engaging in
protected speech, thus violating Plaintiffs rights under the
First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and Section 312 of the Act. 47
U.S.C. §312.
1 Plaintiffs maintain that the present regulatory scheme for radio
broadcasting on its face and as applied to microradio stations violates their
rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution. Further, the FCC’s regulations and rules which do not allow a
party to apply for a license to operate a low power radio station violates
the FCC’s statutory mandate to regulate the airwaves in the public interest.
6
{Here, detail FCC’s contact with x radio station and what
attempts it has made so far in attempting to shut it down}
ARGUMENT
PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM AN EX PARTE
SEIZURE OF BROADCASTING EQUIPMENT BY THE FCC
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must
demonstrate "(1) that it is subject to irreparable harm; and (2)
either (a) that it will likely succeed on the merits or (b) that
there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to
make them a fair ground for litigation and that a balance of the
hardships tips ‘decidedly’ in favor of the moving party."
Genesee Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewing Co., 124 F.3d 137, 142 (2d
Cir. 1997).
{(Most Circuits use some version of this test):
DC CIR: (1) that there will be a likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the relief is denied; (3) that
other interested parties will not suffer substantial harm if the injunction
is granted; and (4) that the public interest favors granting relief.
Barnstead Broadcasting Corp v. Offshore Broadcasting Corp., 865 F. Supp. 2, 5
(D.C. Cir. 1994).}
7Th CIR: In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must
show: (1) that the case has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2)
that no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) that the movant will suffer
irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Storck USA, L.P. v.
Farley Candy Co., 14 F.3d 311, 313-14 (7th Cir. 1994). Only if these three
conditions are met must the Court proceed to balance the harm to the movant
if the injunction is not issued against the harm to the defendant if it is
issued improvidently. Id. at 314. In addition, the court must consider the
public interest in its decision. Id.
9Th CIR: To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must
show either "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of
irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the
merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the movant's] favor. Apple
Computer,Inc. v. Formula Int'l, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984).
These two tests represent points on a sliding scale in which the degree of
irreparable harm increases as the probability of success on the merits
7
decreases. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 762 F.2d 1374,
1376 (9th Cir. 1985). "Under any formulation of the test, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury."
Id. Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury. Goldie's
Bookstore v.Superior Ct., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984).
A. The Plaintiffs Engaging In Microradio Broadcasting Will
Suffer Irreparable Injury Absent A Temporary and
Preliminary Injunction.
The showing of irreparable harm is the "single most
important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction." Bell & Howard v. Masel Supply Co., 719 F.2d 42, 45
(2d Cir. 1983) (internal quotations omitted). Irreparable harm
is "injury for which a monetary award cannot be adequate
compensation." See Jackson Dairy, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 71 (2d Cir.
1979).
"[A] showing of a possible violation of constitutional
rights constitutes irreparable harm justifying a preliminary
injunction." Able v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 1038, 1043
(E.D.N.Y. 1994) (citing Corvino v. Patrissi, 967 F. 2d 73, 77
(2d Cir. 1992)). Plaintiff has a likelihood of succeeding in
establishing serious irreparable injuries through the FCC’s use
of unconstitutional seizures. The procedures employed by the
FCC for seizure of a microradio station’s expressive
instrumentalities and materials preclude any prior judicial
determination as to whether the station is engaging in protected
speech. Such procedures sanction prior restraint on speech by
allowing the government to seize plaintiffs expressive
8
instrumentalities without the constitutionally mandated
procedural safeguards to minimize the risk of self censorship of
protected expression, prevent unreasonable searches and
seizures, and ensure due process of the law.
"[O]ur historical commitment to expressive liberties
dictates that ‘[t]he loss of Fist Amendment freedoms, for even
minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable
injury.’" Paulson v. County of Nassau, 925 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir.
1991) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)
(plurality opinion)); see also Fortune Society v. McGinnis, 319
F. Supp. 901, 903 (S.D.N.Y 1970) ("To deprive one of his
constitutional rights under the First Amendment . . . is in this
Court’s view irreparable and immediate injury."). Plaintiffs
provide a variety of programming, including core political
speech, which fall under the protection of the First Amendment.
{Here, be very specific as to the types of programming Plaintiffs
provide, and why depriving plaintiff the right to broadcast will
constitute irreparable injury}.
At issue here is not only the First Amendment right to
engage in speech, but also the right to receive speech. It is
well established in Supreme Courts jurisprudence that the First
Amendment protects the publics’ right to receive information as
well as the speaker’s freedom to express herself. See e.g.,
Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer
9
Council, 425 U.S. 748, 756 (1976) ("[W]here a speaker exists, as
is the case here, the protection afforded is to the
communication, to its source and to its recipients both.")
(footnote omitted); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762
(1972) (listeners’ right to receive information and advise from
willing speakers is well established"); Red Lion Broadcasting
Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969) ("It is the right of the
public to receive suitable access to social, political,
esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is
crucial here.") Moreover, the right to "receiv[e] information
from willing speakers" is an enforceable one, for its violation
constitutes an injury "sufficient to support [a plaintiff’s]
standing to bring a constitutional challenge." Taylor v.
Resolution Trust Corp., 56 F.3d 1497, 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
Those who listen to the broadcasts of {x radio station}
thus have a First Amendment right to receive information from
those individuals who provide it through this medium. By
seeking to squelch those broadcasts, the FCC’s scheme violates
both Plaintiffs’ right to speak and their listeners’ equally
important right to hear political, cultural and educational
information conveyed to their community.
Apart from a violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment
rights, there is an imminent risk that the United States will
attempt to shut {the station} down, confiscate the stations
10
radio broadcasting equipment, and assess civil fines against, if
not criminally prosecute {the stations} members.
B. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of Their
Constitutional Challenges To Defendants’ Enforcement
Procedures of the Communications Act.
Section 510 (a) of the Act provides, in relevant part,
that:
Any electronic . . . device . . . used . . . with
willful and knowing intent to violate section 301 or
302, or rules prescribed by the [FCC] under such
sections, may be seized and forfeited to the United
States.
47 U.S.C. §510(a). Section 510(b), in turn, provides, in
relevant part, that:
[a]ny property subject to forfeiture to the United
States under this section may be seized by the
Attorney General of the United States upon process
issued pursuant to the supplemental rules for certain
admiralty and maritime claims by any district court of
the United States having jurisdiction over the
property.
47 U.S.C. §510(b). These "in rem" procedures authorize the
issuance of a warrant of seizure upon an ex parte application by
the government. Fed. R. Civ. P. C, E(4). While any person
whose "electronic device" is seized under Section 510(b) may
thereafter petition for its return, there is no statutory right
to a pre-seizure hearing, or a prompt post-seizure hearing, on a
First Amendment defense. United States v. Any and All Radio
Station Transmission Equipment, Etc., 976 F. Supp. 1255, pin
(D.Minn. 1997). Both on its face and as applied by the FCC to
11
microradio stations, Section 510 fails to comport with the
First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment standards governing seizures
of expressive instrumentalities.
The Constitution protects freedom of expression by ensuring
that the freedoms included within the First Amendment’s core of
protections are "ringed about with adequate bulwarks," Bantam
Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 66 (1963), in the form of
"special Fourth Amendment protections accorded . . . seizures of
First Amendment materials." See Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S.
463, 470 (1985). Likewise, the rights of free speech and press
are embodied in the concept of "liberty" which is safeguarded
from deprivations without due process of the law. See Joseph
Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 500 (1952). The
underlying basis for these special protections is the policy of
thwarting "the risk of prior restraint." Maryland, 472 U.S. at
470.
1. Ex parte seizure of plaintiff’s expressive
instrumentalities is prohibited under the Fourth
Amendment.
"[W]hile the general rule under the Fourth Amendment is
that any and all contraband, instrumentalities, and evidence of
crimes may be seized on probable cause (and even without a
warrant in various circumstances), it is otherwise when
materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment are
involved." Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 63
12
(1989) (citing Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 326
n.5 (1979)). The pretrial seizure of expressive materials may
be undertaken only pursuant to "rigorous procedural safeguards"
that minimize the risk of prior restraint on protected
expression. Fort Wayne Book, 489 U.S. at 62, 64. "'Any system
of prior restraints of expression . . . bear[s] a heavy
presumption against its constitutional validity.’". New York
Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) (quoting
Bantam Books, Inc., 372 U.S. at 70). Thus, in A Quantity of
Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964), the large-scale
confiscation of allegedly obscene books and films can only be
undertaken pursuant to a pre-seizure "procedure ‘designed to
focus searchingly on the question of obscenity.’" 378 U.S. at
210 (quoting Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717, 732 (1961).
These same procedural protections extend to the pretrial
seizure of expressive instrumentalities. See, e.g., Fort Wayne
Books, 489 U.S. at 65 (seizure of bookstores as well as books
sold therein declared unlawful). The historical origins of
prior restraint doctrine lies in the 15th and 16th century
"struggle in England" against government licensing of the
printing press -- the most powerful instrumentality of the day.
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 713 (1931). Loud speakers,
characterized by the Supreme Court as expressive instruments
indispensable to effective public speech, are similarly
13
protected by the prior restraint doctrine. See Saia v. New
York, 334 U.S. 558, 561 (1948).
The transmitter used by {x radio station} plainly qualifies
as an expressive instrumentality, since it facilitates, and
indeed is essential to, microbroadcasting. Equally plainly,
Section 510 lacks the "rigorous procedural safeguards" necessary
to minimize the risk of prior restraint on protected expression,
Fort Wayne Books, 489 U.S. at 62, 64, by failing to provide a
"prompt judicial determination" of the First Amendment rights of
whose expressive intrumentalities have been seized by the
government pursuant to that statute. Heller v. New York, 413
U.S. 483, 492 (1973). "The special vice of a prior restraint is
that communication will be suppressed . . . before an adequate
determination that it is unprotected speech." Pittsburgh Press
Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations et al, 413 U.S.
376, 390 (1973). Clearly, an ex parte proceeding will deny
Plaintiff the ability to raise First Amendment defenses to the
FCC’s regulation of microradio, as well as to any allegation
that Plaintiff’s operation is causing harmful interference with
other licensed radio stations.
Most certainly, seizure constitutes the most intrusive and
overly drawn mechanism that the agency could take to silence
plaintiffs. The starkness of the mechanism is highlighted by
the fact that the Act itself provides enforcement tools to
14
address unlicensed broadcasting far less invasive of speech and
expression. For example, section 401 of the Act establishes a
procedure by which the FCC can apply for and obtain an
injunction against unlicensed broadcasting. 47 U.S.C. §401
Under this provision, the alleged violator is entitled to a
hearing in federal court, and is permitted an opportunity to
raise pertinent defenses, including the unconstitutionality of
the statute itself. Given the availability of this less
intrusive process, the current preferred method of enforcement
cannot meet the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness test. As the
Supreme Court noted, the more limited mechanism, which provides
for safeguards against censorship is constitutionally
appropriate:
The difference in the procedures . . . amount to the
distinction between, a limited injunctive remedy,
under closely defined procedural safeguards . . . and
a scheme which [operates] . . . indiscriminately
because of the absence of any such safeguards.
Marcus et. al. v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth
Street, 367 U.S. 717, 734-35 (1961).
However, given the constitutional requirement that, even
when some infringement of speech may be necessary in the face of
a substantial governmental interest, any such infringement must
be "narrowly tailored" to accomplish the articulated regulatory
goals "without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment
freedoms." Village of Schaumberg v. Citizens for a Better
15
Environment, 444 U.S. 618, 637 (1980), see also Sect’y of State
of Maryland v. Munson Co., Inc., 465 U.S. 947, 961 (1984). The
only mechanism consonant with this mandate is an adversarial
hearing prior to seizure, at which an independent, neutral
magistrate is required to consider at least two issues bearing
on the determination of reasonableness: (i) whether there exists
a less intrusive mechanism whereby the FCC can achieve its
regulatory purpose without imposing a prior restraint on
plaintiffs’ speech; and (ii) whether, given the agency’s stated
purpose in enforcing its licensing requirements--namely to
prevent interference--there is a real danger of such
interference. Unfortunately, Section 510 does not provide for
such a hearing, and thus falls outside the parameters of the
constitutionally mandated procedures; it silences first and asks
questions later.
2. Section 510 of the Act deprives plaintiffs of their
liberty and property interest without due process of the
law.
The Due Process Clause within the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments requires, as a general principle, that individuals
must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the
government deprives them of property or liberty interests. See
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332-333 (1975). An exception
to the general rule requiring pre-deprivation notice and hearing
is justified only in extraordinary circumstances. See Id. In
16
order to determine whether the procedures are constitutionally
sufficient, the court considers three factors:
"First, the private interest that will be affected by
the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous
deprivation of such interest through procedures used,
and the probable value, if any, of additional or
substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the
Governments interest including . . . the
administrative burdens that the additional . . .
procedural requirement would entail.
Id. at 335.
The private interest affected by defendants’ actions is the
plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their First Amendment rights.
See United States Labor Party v. Village of Bridgeview, No. 78 C
953, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12864 (N.D.Ill. April 23, 1979).
"[F]reedom of speech . . . [is] among the fundamental personal
rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process
clause . . ." Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925).
The right to broadcast implicates the First Amendment, United
States v. Dunifer, 997 F. Supp. 1235, 1243 (1998) (quoting Red
Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 386 (1969), and is
thus within the scope of the Due Process Clause; as is the use
of instrumentalities of expression. Jacobson v. Peterson, 728
F. Supp. 1415 (District of South Dakota, Central Division 1990)
(deprivation of a newsrack without the opportunity for an
adversarial hearing violates due process). Therefore,
procedures that inhibit expression as a result of a judicial
17
decision, without the opportunity to participate in an adversary
hearing on the merits, violate the Due Process Clause. Grove
Press Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 418 F.2d 82, 90 (3d Cir.
1969).
Furthermore, broadcasting equipment, because of its use as
an instrument of expression, is a significant property interest
implicating a "private interest of historic and continuing
importance", and as such, should weigh heavily on the Mathews
balance. See e.g. United States v. James Daniel Good Real
Property et al., 510 U.S. 43, 53-54 (1993) (due process
prohibits seizures of real property without a prior hearing).
Seizure of property affected by the First Amendment is a
significant property interest that requires some kind of predeprivation
hearing. Miller Newspapers, Inc v. City of Keene,
546 F. Supp. 831, 836 (Dist. NH 1982) (newsracks).
Plaintiffs {x radio station} have a substantial private
interest in continuing to provide the community which they serve
issues, issues, viewpoints, music {etc} that have largely been
ignored by licensed broadcast stations. {Here, detail the types
of programming that is offered, and its importance, and
emphasize the fact that this type of material is not provided
anywhere else. Also discuss ramifications of seizure.}
An additional factor to be considered is the risk of
erroneous deprivation of the plaintiff’s private interests and
18
the probable value, if any of additional procedural safeguards.
Mathews, 424 U.S. at 343. The type of deprivation involved here
is quite serious as it constitutes an outright taking of
plaintiff’s property, and thereby a complete denial of their
rights to engage in constitutionally protected speech. See
International Caucus of Labor Comm. v. Maryland Dep’t Transp.,
745 F. Supp. 323, 330 (D.Md. 1990). Plaintiffs have no
alternative areas in which they can engage in their speech
activities. Id.
The FCC has failed to follow the pre-seizure procedural
safeguards offered to plaintiffs under the Act and thus created
a risk of erroneous deprivation. See generally United States v.
Any and All Radio Station Transmissn, et. al., No. 97-CV-73527
(E.D.Mich. Aug. 2, 1998) (government prohibited from bringing in
rem forfeiture action until the FCC exhausted its administrative
remedies); United States v. Dunifer, 997 F. Supp. 1235, 1236
(1998) (FCC’s motion for preliminary injunction against
microradio station denied until FCC first addressed the issues
of the constitutionality of Class D regulations). Given the
importance of the interests at stake, an ex parte determination
that there is a danger of interference or that Plaintiffs do not
have a First Amendment right to broadcast, without the benefit
of Plaintiffs’ defenses, increases the likelihood of an
erroneous deprivation.
19
Furthermore, as already stated, Section 401 of the Act
establishes a less intrusive procedure by which the FCC can
apply for and obtain an injunction against unlicensed
broadcasting. 47 U.S.C. §401. Under this provision, the
alleged violator is entitled to a hearing in federal court, and
is permitted an opportunity to raise pertinent defenses,
including the unconstitutionality of the statute itself.
Exceptions to the general rule requiring pre-deprivation
notice and hearing is only tolerated in extraordinary situations
where some valid government interest is at stake. See Good Real
Property, 510 U.S. at 53. In assessing the strength of the
government’s interest in obtaining an ex parte seizure, exigent
circumstances are present where: "(1) seizure is necessary to
secure an important governmental or public interest, (2) very
prompt action is necessary, and (3) a government official
initiated the seizure by applying the standards of a narrowlydrawn
statute". Fuentes v. Shevin, 407, U.S. 67 (1972).
Ex parte seizures of property used for illicit purposes
have been permitted to prevent plaintiffs from removing,
concealing, or destroying the property, and to allow the
enforcement of criminal sanctions by forfeitures of the
property. Calero-Toledo et al. v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.,
416 U.S. 663, pin (1974), see also Neapolitian Navigation, Ltd
v. Tracor Marine, Inc., 777 F.2d 1427, 1430 (1985) (actions
20
pursuant to Rule C, ex parte seizures and attachments of
maritime vessels are allowed because the defendant can easily
remove his property from the jurisdiction of the court).
Summary seizures have also been authorized when property was a
threat to public health, North American Cold Storage Co. v. City
of Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908), highway safety, Dixon v. Love,
431 U.S. 105 (1977) and, to a lesser extent, in the interest in
administrative efficiency. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319(1975).
There is no government interest that justifies an ex parte
seizure by the FCC of plaintiff’s microradio station.
Plaintiff’s activities pose no danger or threat to public safety
that is similar to that of persons involved in illicit drug
activities. Plaintiff’s broadcasting does not interfere with
broadcasts of other licensed radio stations in any way.
Plaintiffs have no intention of removing, concealing, or
destroying their equipment in any manner. As community
broadcasters, plaintiffs must remain within the community that
they serve. Their intent, and practice, is to remain on the air
as long as possible in order to provide community broadcasting.
It would be contrary to the purpose of microradio broadcasting
to dismantle their equipment in order to avoid jurisdiction.
The line is drawn not in the characterization of property as
movable or immovable, but on whether a "significant property
21
interest" is at stake. Fuentes, 407 U.S. at pin. Here, there
are no exigent circumstances that outweigh the need of
procedural safeguards to prevent a violation of due process.
On the other hand, there is a strong public interest in
preserving the status quo until the FCC’s licensing scheme can
be challenged on its merits. Universal Amusement Co., Inc., v.
Vance, 587 F.2d 159, 169 (5th Cir. 1978) ("any restraint prior
to judicial review can be imposed . . . only for the purpose of
preserving the status quo") (quoting Southeastern Promotions,
Ltd. V. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 560 (1975).
{x radio station’s} audience has a strong First Amendment
right to continue to receive information until an adversarial
hearing on the merits occurs. Time and again, the Supreme Court
has recognized the First Amendment right of the public to
receive an array of perspectives, opinions, and ideas through
radio and television. Red Lion, 389 U.S. at 390. {x radio
station’s} broadcasts provide news and information to the
community, foster communication among local residents and
neighbors, assist in the development of political, educational,
and cultural groups and associations, and contribute to the
market place of ideas. By seeking to squelch those broadcasts
without affording procedural protections, the FCC violates the
right of the public to hear political, cultural and educational
information conveyed to their community. "It is the right of
22
the public to receive suitable access to social, political,
esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is
crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged
either by Congress or by the FCC." Id.
3. The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction Precludes the FCC
from Bringing a Motion For Ex Parte Seizure Without First
Issuing a Cease and Desist Order under §312 of the Act.
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction the FCC is
prohibited from requesting an ex parte judicial inquiry into
whether the microradio station operated in violation of the
Communications act, thus necessitating seizure, without first
issuing a final administrative decision on that issue. See
United States v. Any and All Radio Station Transmission Equip.,
et. al., No. 97-CV-73527 (E.D.Mich.S.D. Aug. 2, 1998); see also
United States v. Dunifer, 997 F. Supp. 1235, 1236 (1998) (under
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the court stayed the case
so that the issue of the constitutionality of Class D
regulations could first be addressed by the FCC); United States
v. Neset, 10 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (N.D. June 24, 1998) (under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, whether or not the FCC
application practice violated the Administrative Procedure Act
is a question best left to the expertise of the FCC).
The primary jurisdiction doctrine, relied upon by the Any
and All Radio court to deny to government’s request for
forfeiture, provides that:
23
in cases raising issues of fact not within the
conventional experience of judges or cases requiring
the exercise of administrative discretion, agencies
created by Congress for regulating the subject matter
should not be passed over.
Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574 (1952);
FCC v. ITT World Communications, Inc., 466 U.S. 463, 468 n.5
(1984).
"Thus, ‘where Congress has provided statutory review
procedures designed to permit agency expertise to be brought to
bear on particular problems, those procedures are to be
exclusive.’" Any and All Radio, No. 97-CV-73527 (E.D.Mich.S.D.
Aug. 2, 1998) (quoting Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Bank of New Orleans
& Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411, 420 (1965)) (emphasis added). "This
precise situation exists here because the scope and design of
the review procedures provided for in the Communications Act
imply that the FCC is to be charged with governance over the
extremely technical and complex area of radio broadcasting."
See Id. Therefore, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, the
FCC must first issue an order as to whether the plaintiffs are
violating Act prior to an application for ex parte seizure under
section 510. In Any and All Radio, the document served to the
microradio station did not constitute an "order" by the FCC
within the meaning of §312(c) since it did not provide for a
hearing or its waiver as required by the Act. See Id.
24
Section 312(b) of the Act authorizes the FCC to issue a
"cease and desist" order to "any person who has violated or
failed to observe any rule or regulation of the [FCC] authorized
by this Act." 47 U.S.C. § 312(b). Prior to issuance, however,
the FCC must first serve an "order to show cause" upon that
person, which
shall contain a statement of the matter with respect to
which the [FCC] is inquiring and shall call upon said . . .
person to appear before the [FCC] at a time and place
stated in the order . . . but in no such event less than
thirty days after the receipt of such an order, and give
evidence upon the matter specified therein; except that
where safety of life or property is involved, the [FCC] may
provide in the order for a shorter period.
47 U.S.C. § 312(c). At that hearing, the FCC has both the
burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the
burden of proof. 47 U.S.C. § 312(d). A cease and desist order
is thus "proper only after hearing or waiver of the right to a
hearing." United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S.
157, 179 (1986) (emphasis added).
The oral and written warnings given by the FCC to {x radio
station}, were not true cease and desist orders because FCC
issued those orders without following the statutorily mandated
procedures. No order to show cause was served, no one was
informed of a rights to a hearing, no one was provided with the
requisite thirty days notice, no FCC hearings were held, no
written findings made, and no orders issued. Thus, under the
25
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the FCC has no authority to
file an ex parte motion, and the court has not jurisdiction to
hear such a motion, until a hearing and final agency order is
issued.
C. Plaintiffs Claims Present Fair Grounds For Litigation
And the Balance of Equities Is Decidedly In Their Favor.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated "sufficiently serious
questions going to the merits of [their] claims to make them
fair ground for litigation, plus a balance of hardships tipping
decidedly in [their] favor." Plaza Health, 878 F.2d at 580. At
the very least, they have raised questions going to the merits
so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them
a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate
investigation." Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206
F.2d 738, 740 (2d Cir. 1953). Plaintiffs have also shown that,
absent interim relief, they cannot engage in expressive
activities over the electronic public forum dedicated to radio
broadcasting except at the risk of fines, prosecution, and
seizure of their expressive instrumentalities and materials.
In addition, "the risks of substantial constitutional harm"
to plaintiffs clearly tips the equitable balance in their favor,
outweighing the "administrative concerns" that underlie the
restrictions on plaintiffs’ expressive activities. Mitchell v.
Cuomo, 748 F.2d 804, 808 (2d Cir. 1984). In sum, the harm that
26
plaintiffs will suffer if their motion is denied--loss of
freedom of speech, fines, prosecution, confiscation of their
expressive intrumentalities and materials --is ‘decidedly’ greater
than the harm that defendants will suffer if the motion is
granted. Buffalo Forge Co. v. Ampco-Pittsburg Corp., 638 F.2d
568, 569 (2d Cir. 1981).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction should be granted.
Dated:

http://www.freeradio.org/legal/fccdefense.pdf

tags low power fm, lpfm lptv tv frequencies spectrum management