By ANDREW MARTIN
State Representative-elect Rod D. Driver will receive a $28,000 settlement as a result of his lawsuit against Richmond police for repeatedly removing his political signs two years ago.
The Rhode Island branch of the American Civil Liberties Union represented Driver in the case and announced the settlement details last week. A press release from the ACLU called the settlement a “clear victory for First Amendment rights.”
Driver was “quite happy” with the settlement. Of the $28,000, he said he will receive a few thousand dollars while the rest will cover attorneys’ fees and costs. He added that in cases like this, courts usually do not award punitive damages.
“I’m just glad it’s over and I hope the message has been sent to not only Richmond, but cities and towns across the state,” Driver said. He was referring to a state law, which was ruled unconstitutional, that allowed Richmond Chief of Police Raymond Driscoll to take down Driver’s signs because they were within the limits of a public highway. The signs were removed from a property across from the Washington County Fairgrounds.
But Driver contests that Driscoll was not simply following state law because he did not know about the law, until the town filed its papers referencing the statute. Also, Driver said his signs were never on public property anyway. Richmond Town Council President B. Joseph Reddish said the town still stands behind Driscoll’s decision. “The responsibility of a police officer is to follow state law … [Driscoll’s] decision was for the safety of the public for visibility,” Reddish said.
He added that he hoped Driver would donate his leftover winnings to a charity.
The police department’s insurance company will cover most of the settlement cost, though Reddish said $2,250 will come from the town.
The settlement stems from a suit by Driver against the town and Chief Driscoll. Driver argued that his constitutional rights had been violated when officers took down his political signs in 2002 and 2006. When learning of the lawsuit, Richmond intended to file a response but missed the deadline, so the state stepped in and cited a law regarding sign removal on state property.
Driver, who was then running for U.S. Congress, first learned in 2002 that his signs had been removed from their location on private property across the street from the Washington County Fairgrounds. Driscoll told Driver that he needed written permission from the property owners to put up the signs. And when he supplied the chief with those papers, the signs remained in place.
But when Driver ran once more for Congress in 2006, the problem reared its head again. Driver said he received a voicemail from Driscoll stating that the signs, which were in the same spot, were too close to Route 112. Heeding the chief’s advice, Driver put up two new signs further from the road. But they, too, were removed.
As a result, Driver displayed another sign with the text “this sign is on private property, well outside the public right of way,” according to the court ruling. This time, the sign was untouched.
A ruling on the case came in August by U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith. He handed down the decision that the state law in question, on its face, “operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint because it grants the local chief of police unbridled discretion to approve or deny sign postings on even private property that overlaps with a public highway right of way.
“For this reason, Driver’s motion for summary judgment is granted,” Smith’s decision continued
Back in August, Driver was delighted with the judge’s opinion, saying it was a long time coming. His attorney, ACLU volunteer Richard A. Sinapi, shared that enthusiasm. He commented that the decision was a justification of Driver’s First Amendment rights and a total vindication of the amendment’s core purpose to protect political expression.
|
