Pubdate: Thu, 27 Feb 2003
Source: Baraboo News Republic (WI)
Copyright: 2003 Independent Media Group, Inc.
Contact:  http://baraboo.scwn.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1002
Author: Brian Bridgeford

COUNTY LAW IN COURT

MADISON -Marijuana legalization advocate Ben Masel expressed guarded
optimism Thursday after the 4th District Wisconsin Court of Appeals heard
arguments in his case challenging Sauk County's large assemblies ordinance.

Masel appeared with his attorney, Jeff Scott Olson of Madison, before a
three-judge appeals court panel in the marble and gilded State Capitol
hearing room also used by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The ordinance and its
use to shut down the Weedstock pro-legalization rally in May of 2000 were
defended by attorney Barbara J. Janaszek of Milwaukee and Assistant Sauk
County Corporation Counsel Chad A. Hendee.

Masel attempted to hold the annual festival on a farm field in Fairfield
Township east of Baraboo and did not get the permit required under the
ordinance. County officials obtained a court order directing Weedstock
participants to clear the site. Then Sauk County Sheriff Randy Stammen moved
in with deputies and police officers from Sauk and Columbia counties to
close down the event on its first day.

Most participants left without incident, but 11 people were arrested after
they defied the court order or were found in possession of drugs.

Olson told the judges that an ordinance ostensibly designed for legitimate
public safety purposes can still be used as a "subterfuge for censorship" to
silence unpopular ideas. The Sauk County ordinance is defective, he said,
because it allows too much discretion on the part of the officials on the
county committees that administer the regulation.

Among the problems he pointed to were: a permit for large assemblies must be
applied for at least 60 days before an event and county officials have 45
days to make a decision; a boundary marker can be required and officials
could insist on anything from cheap plastic tape to a metal cyclone fence;
rules governing excessive light or noise do not specify what level would be
a violation.

The ordinance must be evaluated based on whether it could be used as a prior
restraint of speech and expression that are protected by the First
Amendment, Olson said. "Here, they're not trying to be as specific as they
could be," he said. "It's in the judgment of the (Sauk County) Law
Enforcement Committee."

Janaszek said the Sauk County ordinance should be evaluated based on the
recognized right of governments to make judgments about the time, place and
manner of protected expression. The ordinance is a mechanism to protect
public health and safety.

"This ordinance has an extremely narrow scope - assemblies of 1,000 or more
people who are there for 18 or more hours in a place that is not normally
used for an assembly," she said.

Masel or other persons wanting to convey a First Amendment message could use
other means, said Janaszek. For example, they can hold a gathering with
1,000 or more people but have them return to motels to sleep rather than
having the event run through the night.

Both parties were subject to extensive questioning by the three judges.
Presiding Judge Margaret Vergeront asked Janaszek about a provision of the
ordinance which allows Sauk County to seek financial penalties against the
organizers of an assembly if they promote the event before receiving a
county permit to hold it.

Sauk County has filed forfeiture actions against Masel and landowner Marcus
Gumz asking for penalties of between $1,000 and $10,000 a day for each of 12
days Weedstock 2000 was promoted on Masel's Web site. That civil court
action is suspended until the higher courts reach a decision on whether the
large assemblies ordinance meets constitutional muster.

In response to the judge's question, Janaszek acknowledged that the penalty
for promoting events may be a questionable part of the ordinance.

As she completed her time before the court, Janaszek again insisted that the
ordinance must be evaluated based on its function to protect public health
and safety. She asked the court to uphold the ordinance as a whole. However,
if part of it was ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the ordinance should
be allowed to continue in force, she said.

Janaszek and Assistant Corporation Counsel Hendee said they preferred not to
comment after the hearing. They deferred to Sauk County Corporation Counsel
Todd Liebman who was not available Thursday.

"They asked thoughtful, tough questions of both sides," Hendee said. "I
thought Ms. Janaszek did a wonderful job and now it's in the court's hands."

Olson said the judges treated them fairly and had given thought to the
issues raised by Masel's appeal of the Sauk County ordinance. "I was
extremely happy that the judges had obviously digested and thought about the
arguments of the parties in advance of the arguments," he said. "These are
not easy issues for judges that don't decide First Amendment cases every
day."

"I'm guardedly optimistic," Masel said.

Olson did not expect a decision on the case before summer or into the fall.

Prosecution of the Weedstock case is a "frivolous" use of county taxpayer's
money and should be stopped, said Linda Ellen, a Sauk County resident who
attended the hearing. "Weedstock should be allowed to go on if it brings
money into our county," she said. "It shouldn't be taking money out of our
county by this kind of government repression."