PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CASE NO.: 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19B

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR.,
and PATRICIA B. WINDLE,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM REQUESTED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN THAT ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1999

(THIS CONCERNS A DISPOSITIVE MOTION)

Christopher F. Sapp, Esquire
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar No.: 0097823
and
Michael R. Hirsh, Esquire
Hirsh & Heuser
125 Townpark Drive, Suite 300
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
Attorneys for Plaintiff

TABLE OF CITATIONS

1. S. H. KRESS & CO. v. POWELL, 180 So. 757 (Supreme Court of Florida, Division B, 1938). For brevity: Kress.

2. JOHNSON v. WEINER, 19 So. 2d 699 (Supreme Court of Florida, Division B, 1944). For brevity: Johnson.

3. GILBERT v. SEARS, ROE-BUCK AND CO., 899 F. Supp. 597 (Middle District of Florida, 1995) For brevity: Gilbert.

EXHIBITS:

A. Kress opinion

B. Johnson opinion

C. Gilbert opinion

D. Pleadings from Women's Health Center, Inc., et al. v. Operation Rescue, et al., Circuit Court of Seminole County, Florida. Case No. 91-2811-CA-16-K:
1. Verified Petition For Injunction - signed by Patricia Baird Windle, 10/24/91
2. Verified Motion For Temporary Restraining Order - signed by Patricia Baird Windle, 10/24/91
3. Temporary Injunction - signed by Judge Robert McGregor, 10/25/91
4. Permanent Injunction - signed by Judge Wallace H. Hall, 9/30/92
5. Affidavit of Patricia Baird Windle - signed 10/25/91
6. Affidavit of Edward Windle, signed 6/24/92
7. Motion and Notice of Contempt on Shiela Rae Eschenberg - signed by Jerri A. Blair, Esq., 11/11/92
8. Service on Sheila Rae Eschenberg - 11/21/92
9. Open Court Minutes for Judge Hall - 12/4/92
10. Emergency Motion For Modification of Injunctive Order - signed by Talbot (Sandy) D'Alemberte, 3/22/93
11. Amended Permanent Injunction - signed by Judge Robert McGregor, 4/8/93

E. Office of State Attorney letter dated October 24, 1995

F. Affidavit of Meredith T. Raney, Jr. - 2/21/99

G. Affidavit of Graham C. Dugas, III - 2/19/99

H. Affidavit of Matthew Carroll - 2/19/99

ISSUE

Whether the Melbourne City Police were the agents of the Defendants when they physically obstructed and removed Meredith T. Raney, Jr., a F.A.C.E. - protected counselor from the facility at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida?

SYNOPSIS OF BOTH ANALYSES

The answer to the question asked by the District Judge on February 1, 1999 is "Yes. The Melbourne City Police were the agents and instruments of the Defendants at the times specified in the Complaint."

There are two legal tests to be applied to the two possible fact situations. The first is the Johnson/Kress analysis (Exhibits A and B) which is necessitated by the admission contained in the Defendants' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Dismiss, (document number 8) where they concede:

"...Defendants notified local law enforcement of Plaintiff's violation of the injunction. This resulted in Plaintiffs removal from the buffer zone by officers of the Melbourne Police Department."

Treating this concession as true, the Melbourne Police are the agents and instruments of the Defendants according to the Johnson/Kress analysis.

In the event that Defendants have subsequently retreated from this admission, the Gilbert case (Exhibit C) then applies to the surveillance program that the Defendants procured. Once again, the police are shown to be the agents and instruments of the Defendants under this second analysis.

In either event, the police are the agents and instruments of the Defendants.

JOHNSON/KRESS ANALYSIS

The S.H. Kress & Co. Store in Pensacola, Florida was full of shoppers on Christmas Eve., 1934. Dorothy Powell, 17 years old, was shopping there with a five dollar bill that looked like a counterfeit to the store manager. He turned the girl over to a local policeman. After the policeman removed the young lady from the store, it was discovered that her five dollar bill was genuine. Miss Powell was released from the police station. She later successfully sued the store for false imprisonment. The store appealed.

Florida Supreme Court determined at page 760 of Kress:

"...The alleged acts of the "manager" in causing plaintiff to be taken to the police station was
not necessarily done solely for the purpose of vindicating public justice, which is generally
not actionable; Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214, 217; but may also have been done to prevent the plaintiff from later passing or attempting to pass the same five -dollar bill in defendant's store in exchange for merchandise, which the "manager" may have believed would result in financial loss to his company, as well as to prevent others from doing similar acts."

In upholding Miss Powell's favorable verdict for unlawful detention, the Supreme Court further ruled that lack of probable cause was not an essential element in her case.

Several years later, Raymond Johnson was shopping in Meyer Weiner's store in Wauchula, Florida. Mr. Weiner notified the sheriff's office that a man for whom he had sworn out a warrant was present in his store. When the Sheriff arrived, Raymond Johnson was pointed out to him by Mr. Weiner as the person named in the warrant. Mr. Johnson was taken into custody and removed from the store. A short while later, the error in identity was discovered and Mr. Johnson was released; afterwards, he filed suit which was dismissed. An appeal ensued.

Here the Supreme Court was advised by the store owner that the arrest was the responsibility of the Sheriff and that Mr. Weiner merely made an erroneous identification of Mr. Johnson. This argument was rejected, for the Supreme Court stated:

"To be liable in an action for false imprisonment, one must have personally and actively participated therein, directly or by indirect procurement. All those who, by direct act or indirect procurement, personally participate in or proximately cause the false imprisonment and unlawful detention are liable therefor. See 22 Am.Jur. pages 371-374, where numerous authorities are cited. (Emphasis is supplied)

It appears from the allegations of this declaration that the sheriff did not have in his hands a warrant for the arrest of the appellant and we think the declaration is sufficient in its allegations to show that the defendant, by swearing out the warrant and then making his alleged statement to the sheriff that plaintiff was the man for whom the warrant was issued, was instrumental in procuring the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff." Page 701.

In both of these cases, there are some obvious similarities. A business man calls on local law enforcement for assistance; the policeman follows directions from the business man; a person is unlawfully taken into custody and removed from the business premises; there is no need for the victim to show lack of probable cause on the part of the business man; there is no need to show employment or payment to the policeman by the business man. The Florida Supreme Court held the business liable for the unlawful detention by the policeman. In other words, the policeman became the agent of the business due to the procurement by the business man.

Applied to the case at hand, the Defendants' confession in their Memorandum shows that they procured the unlawful detention of Meredith T. Raney, Jr. and his removal from the facility. His affidavit (Exhibit F.) reiterates the unlawfulness of this removal. Thus, the Melbourne City Police are the agents and instruments of the Defendants in all of the instances stated in the Complaint.

GILBERT ANALYSIS

District Judge Kovachevich was asked to rule on a motion for summary judgment in Gilbert, a Tampa case filed in the Middle District of Florida. The pivotal issue was the responsibility of the defendant business for an arrest on its premises made by the Tampa police.

The Sears store had a problem with homosexual activity occurring in its men's bathroom. There were complaints from the customers and Sears tried for several months to deter the activity itself. But the problem persisted and Sears called on the Tampa Police Department for assistance, stating that illegal activity was occurring in the men's bathroom at its Tampa Bay Mall store.

Sears agreed to a police-operated surveillance program. The police were given access to the business premises.

Mr. Gilbert was later arrested in the Sears bathroom and charged with exposure of sexual organs pursuant to the Florida Statutes. One policeman surveying the bathroom from the ceiling and another police officer located in the bathroom had observed Mr. Gilbert, who sued thereafter for a civil rights violation.

Sears defended, saying that it had not actively participated in the surveillance program, that it had not participated in the arrest of Mr. Gilbert, or directly or indirectly procured the arrest. Sears demanded a summary judgment in its favor.

According to the depositions, the following had happened:

a. Sears allowed TPD access to its premises.
b. TPD routinely checked in with Sears' security office when arriving on duty.
c. Sears provided office space and a video camera.
d. TPD and Sears jointly decided to post a sign in the bathroom.
e. Sears determined the wording on the sign.
f. Sears kept information on the people arrested.

It was Mr. Gilbert's position that:

"...[T]he program that this law enforcement operation was "plugged into" and made part of, was, from beginning to end, that of Sears. In other words, TPD's operation was a tool utilized by Sears to achieve its own goals." Page 599.

Judge Kovachevich denied Sears's motion for summary judgment on the issue of Sears' responsibility for the activity of the police. She utilized the Johnson case in making this decision. There was never any question, though, that Sears had specifically pointed out the victim to the police as had the Kress manager or the Wauchula merchant. In the Gilbert case, the store had procured a program which resulted in unlawful detention. And once again, there was no need to show that the police were on Sears' payroll or under contract. Nor was there any claim that probable cause did not exist.

The program instituted by the Windles in the present case is far more conclusive. The first six items in Composite Exhibit D which is attached hereto show that the Windles sought and obtained a private injunction to protect their business in Melbourne. After obtaining their injunction, they charged one person, Sheila Rae Eschenberg, with contempt of court. (Items 7 and 8 of Composite Exhibit D). The Circuit Judge refused to find Ms. Eschenberg in contempt because she was not a named party in this action. (Item 9 of Composite Exhibit D). At this point, the Windles had no real program in place which involved the police as their instruments or agents.

The situation changed after the Windles secured their private Amended Permanent Injunction (Items 10 and 11 of Composite Exhibit D) which was later reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. The Windles, through their controlled corporation, Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., asked for and obtained special privileges to control the territory around their business and to involve the police in enforcing their private injunction. The Windles and company sought and obtained permission to erect a sign on the site, advising people of their private injunction. And, as the affidavits attached (Exhibits F,G, and H) demonstrate, the Melbourne City Police were stationed at Aware Woman, for hours on end, in a surveillance program controlled by the Windles.

It is plain that the police in Melbourne were controlled and directed to a far greater extent than the police in the Sears' bathroom. Presumably, the Tampa police could come and go from the bathroom as they or their supervisors desired. And they were not expected to make arrests on a private injunction of anyone displeasing to Sears, contrary to the Defendants' expectations in Melbourne. Significantly, the Tampa police are not shown to have made numerous illegal arrests nor take Mr. Gilbert into unlawful custody on several occasions and remove him from the Sears premises each time.

The letter from the State Attorney's office (Exhibit E) is more proof that the Windles procured the detention of persons whom they deemed bad for their business. As the attached affidavits point out, the Windles had good connections to the law enforcement community and, for a long while, got what they wanted in the way of police subservience. Even more dramatically than in the Gilbert case, the Melbourne City Police were the instruments and agents of the present Defendants. They were controlled by these Defendants.

Not only are the Windles and Aware Woman liable for the police activity described in the Complaint based on the Johnson/Kress analysis, but when judged by the Gilbert criteria, it is plainly evident that Defendants are liable to Meredith T. Raney, Jr. for F.A.C.E. violations on all three dates.

CONCLUSION

The civil rights of Meredith T. Raney, Jr. under 18 U.S.C. § 248 have been violated by all Defendants as stated in the Complaint: the Melbourne City Police were the instruments and agents of the Defendants when the Plaintiff was unlawfully removed from the facility at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida on the three occasions specified. Thus, summary judgment should be denied the Defendants and granted to the Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar Number 0097823
and
Michael R. Hirsh
Hirsh & Heuser
125 Townpark Drive, Suite 300
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Roy Lucas, Esquire, Post Office Box 1433, Melbourne, Florida 32902, Susan England, Esquire, 2805 Lakeview Drive, Fern Park, Florida 32730 and to Lawrence M. Siff, Esquire, O'Connor & Meyers, PA, 2801 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor, (Coral Gables) Miami, Florida 33134 this 22nd day of February, 1999.

Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Attorney

EXHIBIT D-9
MINUTES, CIRCUIT COURT, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FL, 12/4/92

WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER vs. OPERATION RESCUE
CASE NO. 91-2811-CA
DATE: December 4, 1992, SCHEDULED TIME: 3:00 PM
OPEN COURT MINUTES FOR Petitioner's M/Contempt
COURT OPENED AT: 3:00 pm IN COURTROOM L
HONORABLE WALLACE H. HALL, BAILIFFS S. Gross
PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: Blair
RESPONDENT ATTORNEY: pro se
TRIAL CLERK: Claudia Girard
ELECTRONIC/COURT REPORTER: none

Attorney Blair was present on behalf of the Petitioners.

Sheila Eschenberg and Bruce Cadle were present.

Attorney Blair presented an overview of the issues and requested the court make a determination whether to proceed as a civil contempt or criminal contempt.

Court found it inappropriate to proceed on contempt whereas Sheila Eschenberg is not named as a party to this action. Court directed Attorney Blair to add Respondant as a party to this action and proceed that way.

Circuit Court recessed at 3:14 pm.

EXHIBIT F
AFFIDAVIT OF MEREDITH T. RANEY, Jr.

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE

Before me this day personally appeared Meredith T. Raney, Jr. who being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. My name is Meredith T. Raney, Jr. I live in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida and I am the Plaintiff in a civil action filed in the Orlando Division of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

2. I am not a party to the injunction that was reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in the Madsen decision. At the times in question in my lawsuit I was serving as a reproductive health service provider, namely offering counseling and referral information to people at the Aware Woman/Hope Adoption facility here in Melbourne.

3. Also, I was not acting in concert with any party named in that injunction. I have checked the records and found that no party to the Madsen injunction was ever cited for contempt or charged in any way with violating that injunction. In July of 1993, I was present at the trials of well over a hundred people who were charged with violating the buffer zone. None of those on trial were parties named in the injunction. It is common knowledge that many people were in the buffer zone. Some were arrested, some were not. The ones arrested were the ones there without the approval of the Windles or their Aware Woman representatives.

4. I am not trying to reverse or change any law or court decision. Instead, I am relying on the plain language of the FACE law and on various related court decisions for protection while serving as a reproductive health service provider as defined in FACE.

5. On each of the three occasions when I was threatened and then removed physically from the public pedestrian right of way inside the boundaries of the Aware Woman facility. I was aware that the Melbourne City Police were stationed there.

6. In casual conversation with some of the officers working for the City of Melbourne, these officers told me that at police headquarters, there was a special voluntary sign-up sheet for overtime abortion clinic duty. One of the officers, I think it was Officer Bearden, told me that he used the overtime money he made from abortion clinic duty to buy himself a personal computer.

7. Generally, Aware Woman performed abortions two days a week but I never knew ahead of time just which days or exactly what time of day they would start.

8. Over time, I noticed a pattern developing. When a police car parked at the west side of the facility on Dixie Way it was certain that patients would soon be showing up and I prepared to begin offering my counseling and referral services to these patients. The police were in uniform, wearing their badges, carrying their guns and handcuffs. The presence of that marked police car parked on Dixie Way became my alert that patients would soon be coming and I would prepare to begin offering counseling and referral information when they got there.

9. This program, orchestrated by the Windle's, was in place during the entire time period, January 1995 through January 1996, covering the three FACE violations described in my lawsuit. During that time period, I knew of no one, including myself, who was charged at the clinic for any violation of any city, county, or state law. It was always the injunction that had been issued at the request of the Windles and Aware Woman. The charge was always "contempt of court." And everyone, myself included, who was removed from the facility was taken to jail.

10. Each of the three times that I was confronted by the Melbourne City Police, I explained that I was passing out referral information and literature, that I was not violating the injunction. Each time, the police officer could plainly see that I was on the sidewalk and had literature and written information in my hand. They could see that I was peaceful and not breaking any laws. But they also knew that the Windles had not approved of my trying to provide this literature to the pregnant mothers. Without the Windles' prior approval there was no way that the police were going to let me offer counseling help and referral information to these women: it would be bad for their abortion business if any of these mothers had chosen life for her baby.

11. I don't harbor any bad feelings to the policemen who interfered with my FACE protected counseling and referral services. They were just instruments of the Windles, doing what the Windles wanted done. The people who were hurt the most were the mothers and their little children. I would estimate that at least ten pregnant mothers got abortions on each of those days when I was prevented from offering them help and alternative solutions to their problems. That totals at least twenty victims (1 mother plus 1 child times 10) each day who needed my help and that of the people I could refer them to but didn't get it because I had been physically removed from the facility.

12. It was obvious to me that someone in charge of the Aware Woman clinic had to be communicating the abortion schedule to the Melbourne Police Department, telling them when to show up.

13. The time when the policemen could leave was a different story. Since the time to do abortions varied depending on a lot of things, the officers didn't know when Aware Woman would let them leave. On many occasions, I have observed a clinic worker come out after all of the patients had left and speak to the officer. Then the officer knew that he had permission from the clinic to leave for the day. Sometimes, the patrol car was there as late as eleven p.m. before a clinic worker would finally come out and speak to the officer who would then leave.

14. I was never convicted on any of the three "contempt of court" charges filed while serving as a FACE protected counselor, the Circuit Court recognized that I was not in violation of the injunction.

15. I know that the Windles have answered one of the interrogatories saying that the Melbourne police were compensated with money for providing security. But, I don't think that money was the only reason that the Melbourne Police department were tools of the Windles.

16. There were close ties between the local law enforcement community and the Windles. In their pleadings the Windles attached a letter (Doc. 47, Exhibit 2) from Michelle Jackson, Esquire, the assistant state attorney who was in charge of prosecuting Madsen contempt cases. In her letter she asks Mr. Windle if he wants some of these people punished more harshly. The tone of the letter is that of a servant reporting on the status of a task previously assigned by her master and then seeking advice from that master on what she should do next. Also, the former attorney for the defendants in this case, Vincent G. Torpy, Esquire of Melbourne is himself a former local policeman, whose brother is Major Wayne Torpy of the Melbourne City Police. Major Torpy was an officer with the Melbourne City Police at the time of the three incidents that are the subjects of this lawsuit. In other words, the Windles have good connections.

17. I don't know how many buttons the Windles had to push to get what they wanted from the police, but at least one of them worked. The Windles were able to annex the public property in the buffer zone to their private property as part of their complete facility - for all practical purposes.

18. The Windles say in their Answers to the Interrogatories that they don't know what the physical dimensions of the Aware Woman/Hope Adoption facility are. But their actions speak for them. The Windles facility includes not only what they purchased at 1564 Dixie Way but also the Madsen buffer zone which they annexed to become part of their facility through court actions initiated and controlled by them. It was in this facility that I was lawfully on the sidewalk, protected by FACE as I sought to give counseling advice and referral printed material to pregnant mothers who were very much in need of help evidenced by the fact they were desperate enough to pay to have their own children killed.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Meredith T. Raney, Jr. <signed>

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 21st day of February, 1999 by Meredith T. Raney, Jr. who produced Florida Driver's License Number R500-558- 46-058-0 as identification.

Elizabeth A. Marino <signed>
NOTARY PUBLIC - State of Florida
My commission expires: May 25, 2002
Commission # CC745105

EXHIBIT G
AFFIDAVIT OF GRAHAM C. DUGAS, III

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BREVARD

Before me this day personally appeared Graham C. Dugas, III, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. My name is Graham C. Dugas, III. For four and one-half years I lived directly across the street (Dixie Way) from the Aware Woman abortion clinic.

2. More specifically, I lived at 1575 Dixie Way from June, 1993 to December, 1997.

3. There was a period of time when the Melbourne City Police gave every appearance of working for the abortion clinic operators, enforcing what was called the McGregor injunction. They painted lines down the edge of the road in front of my house and put up a sign saying that an injunction was in effect regulating the use of the public property inside these lines.

4. Whenever the abortion clinic was doing abortions, the Melbourne City policemen would be stationed at the clinic. These "surgery" days followed no regular schedule. They were fairly random. The Windles who run the abortion clinic kept this scheduling knowledge under tight wraps in order to prevent pro-life counselors from having any chance to prepare in advance their efforts to offer women thinking about abortions any alternative health care solutions.

5. The police would arrive unannounced thirty to ninety minutes prior to the abortionist. They would stay until he left or until someone from Aware Woman came out and told them that it was okay to leave. There were no "incidents" that the police were responding to. Rather, it was evident that the operators of Aware Woman had an established arrangement in order to have the police stationed at the clinic just at the certain times corresponding to the clinic's randomly scheduled "surgery" times.

6. This arrangement that the clinic operators had with the police was in place during the times of Meredith Raney's arrests on January 28, 1995, April 26, 1995 and January 24, 1996.

7. The police kept everybody out of the buffer zone that didn't work for the abortion clinic. Only the abortion clinic people could work or do anything in the buffer zone. Anyone known to be pro-life, or who was just unknown to the clinic, who tried to go into the buffer zone was threatened, arrested and thrown into jail if they didn't leave immediately. If anyone just wanted to pass out literature on the sidewalk, they were arrested immediately without any effort to find out if they were within the scope of the McGregor injunction or not. People were presumed to be in violation of the injunction without regard to their being within its scope.

8. Not only did I see the police who were stationed at the clinic intimidate other people, they arrested me as well.

9. My mailbox was on the other side of the street, in the buffer zone. In July of 1994 when I walked over to my mailbox with a letter to send, I was arrested and taken away by the Melbourne City Police who charged me with violating the buffer zone injunction. It's true that I stepped into the buffer zone but I was only there to mail a letter as I regularly did. The police could see this plainly. I wasn't breaking any law.

10. The charges were later dropped.

11. I believe that the police in Melbourne don't normally arrest people for their beliefs but they surely did in the McGregor injunction buffer zone due to the apparent arrangement they had with the clinic owners.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Graham C. Dugas, III <signed>

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 19th day of February, 1999 by
Graham C. Dugas, III who is personally known to me, or who produced Florida
Driver's License Number FLDL D220-283-9-460-0 as identification.

Joan A. Buckler
NOTARY PUBLIC - State of Florida

My commission expires: May 6, 2002

EXHIBIT H
AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW CARROLL

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BREVARD

Before me this day personally appeared Matthew Carroll, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. My name is Matthew Carroll. I live in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, and have been a resident of this county for 30 years. From October 1991 until July 1998, I lived one block from the Aware Woman abortion clinic and regularly witnessed the activities of the Melbourne City Police at that location.

2. I saw that the Melbourne City Police, starting in 1993 and continuing until 1996, were providing security to Aware Woman on a frequent basis. The security provided was regimented and apparently well planned, as opposed to random spot surveillance. There was an established program in place that was obviously executed at the pleasure of the operators of Aware Woman.

3. On the days when the abortion clinic operators were having abortions performed at Aware Woman - this was generally two days a week - there would be at least one police car and at least one Melbourne City Policeman stationed at Aware Woman. The exact surgery days varied from week to week so it was obvious that the Windles or their people were telling the police when to show up.

4. Once the Melbourne City Police showed up on a surgery day, they would stay there the whole business day.

5. At other times, the Melbourne City Police might drive patrol cars through the neighborhood and even stop sometimes at Aware Woman and look around. However, when abortions were being done, the policemen were stationed continuously at the clinic.

6. Using the Windles' injunction as an excuse, the Melbourne City Police would keep everybody except the abortion clinic workers and their designees out of what they called the buffer zone. Clinic workers and persons who were approved by clinic workers were given complete license to be in the buffer zone. Persons who were not approved by Aware Woman were quickly confronted by police officers. Police officers would then threaten to arrest these persons and place under arrest those who did not immediately leave the buffer area.

7. I personally was arrested in July 1994 by a Melbourne City Police officer while I was walking on a public sidewalk in my own neighborhood. I was charged with violating the injunction because I had walked into the buffer zone without receiving the approval of the clinic operatives. I was not charged with anything else.

8. I know Meredith T. Raney, Jr. I have heard that he was arrested in 1995 and 1996 by the Melbourne City Police because he went into the buffer zone to give some advice or some information to the women there. I think that it is rather obvious that the Windles didn't want him or any other persons not approved by them giving information to the women there, and that is why the police that were stationed there according to the Windles' instructions arrested him.

9. I was grieved to see public property in my own neighborhood controlled by the Windles as part of their abortion clinic. I was also greatly troubled by the Windles using the police to harass and arrest people that wanted to privately pray on the sidewalk and pass out literature to women who needed advice. I believe that the women going to the Windles' clinic had the right to get information about alternatives to abortion and about all of the help that was available to them, and that the Windles never should have caused Meredith Raney to be arrested for trying to help these women. This was very wrong.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Matthew Carroll <signed>

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 19th day of February, 1999 by Matthew Carroll who is personally known to me, or who produced Florida Driver's License Number C640-550-66-460-0 as identification.

Carmea R. Lorton <signed>
NOTARY PUBLIC - State of Florida
My commission expires: June 24, 2001