ILNews

Plainfield political sign ordinance challenged

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Plainfield ordinance restricting political lawn signs.

Filed this morning in the Southern District of Indiana, the case of Robert N. Crews v. Town of Plainfield seeks to have the local zoning ordinance declared unconstitutional and to stop town officials from enforcing it. Plaintiff Robert N. Crews sued after receiving a letter from the planning department Sept. 10 notifying him he couldn't have a political sign displayed in his front yard because of the rules.

According to the town's 10-year-old local zoning ordinance, those signs can only be posted 30 days prior to the election and must be taken down within five days following the election.

The sign was less than 16-square feet in area, wasn't placed in a right of way, and didn't hinder safety or traffic visibility, the suit says. While the suit doesn't mention by name the presidential candidate the sign supports, Crews confirmed it was in support of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He removed the sign and hasn't put it back on the lawn since then, but feels his own and his wife's First Amendment rights are being violated, and they want resolution as soon as possible prior to the Nov. 4 election.

The ACLU of Indiana plans to ask the court to issue a preliminary injunction stopping Plainfield from enforcing the ordinance, according to legal director Ken Falk.

This is the fourth suit of its kind the civil rights group has filed in the state, and so far three have been resolved in favor of those wanting to put the signs in their front yards.

In past years, Noblesville and Valparaiso backed down from enforcing political sign restrictions and a proposed settlement in a Highland case is being finalized as the town steps down from enforcing its local ordinance, Falk said.

"It's beyond my comprehension why communities continue to think they can infringe on the First Amendment this way," Falk said. "Numerous cases across the country have struck down these ordinances as a violation, and it's clear that we're talking about a fundamental right of political free speech here .... This is the way all of us have the right to speak about and contribute to campaigns in a very public way."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  2. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  3. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  4. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  5. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

ADVERTISEMENT