And just in case anyone needs it. Rickey J. Knighton II | Assistant City Attorney | City of Norman 201 West Gray | P.O. Box 370 | Norman, Oklahoma 73070 ' 405.217.7700 | 6 405.366.5425 | * rick.knighton@normanok.gov<mailto:rick.knighton@normanok.gov> | þ www.normanok.gov<http://www.normanok.gov/> This e-mail is the property of the City Attorney's office, City of Norman, Oklahoma, and the information contained in this e-mail is protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by e-mail. If the person actually receiving this message or any other reader of the message is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us and return the original message. From: Rick Knighton Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2022 10:34 AM To: 'kendominic@me.com' <kendominic@me.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL EMAIL : [Oama] Response Brief to Challenge of Disturbing the Peace City Ordinance The first document affirms the trial court's ruling that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction. The second document is the trial court's ruling on summary judgment. I didn't do a very good job on the plaintiff's facial claim but we had a short evidentiary hearing and are waiting on the court to issue a ruling. The third document is the City's submission regarding the standard the court should use to decide the Plaintiffs' facial claim. Rickey J. Knighton II | Assistant City Attorney | City of Norman 201 West Gray | P.O. Box 370 | Norman, Oklahoma 73070 ' 405.217.7700 | 6 405.366.5425 | * rick.knighton@normanok.gov<mailto:rick.knighton@normanok.gov> | þ www.normanok.gov<http://www.normanok.gov/> This e-mail is the property of the City Attorney's office, City of Norman, Oklahoma, and the information contained in this e-mail is protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by e-mail. If the person actually receiving this message or any other reader of the message is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us and return the original message. From: kendominic--- via Oama <oama@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama@lists.imla.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2022 10:21 AM To: oama@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama@lists.imla.org> Subject: EXTERNAL EMAIL : [Oama] Response Brief to Challenge of Disturbing the Peace City Ordinance I have received a Motion to Dismiss a Disturbing the Peace based upon a First Amendment Argument that any speech made in public, including profanity is protected and can't be prosecuted, thus proffering that our disturbing the peace ordinance is unconstitutional as it relates to any speech. Except of Motion: 1. The Defendant was charged with violation of Ordinance No. 10-401,disturbing the peace by profane language and conduct 2. The language and conduct complained of consists of allegations that the Defendant "flipped off the complaining witness, and yelled "f--k you, f--k the church and f--k the lying pastor. The defendant admitted in a sworn statement that he had been drinking and was standing on his property screaming at a church group on the adjacent property, which consisted of several small children participating in a hay ride. The Defendant admitted to all of the allegations to include flipping them off and yelling the profanity. Note: The church and the Defendant are involved in a boundary dispute for some time but the group was not on or near the contested boundary. Counsel argues Cohen v. California, which held that a jacket reading f--k the draft was protected speech, or at least not violative of the Ordinance for Disturbing the Peace. This case would not seem to fit the facts of our matter due to the presence of children of tender years and no intent of the defendant to protest or utter the profanities for any other reason than to incite a fight, maybe even constitute fighting words. Counsel finally cites B.L v. Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist., 964 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2020), this case involves a cheerleader being disciplined by the school for off campus, non-school related, online posts, using profanity towards the school and the administration. Once again this case has some apparent dicta as to profanity not being a violation in and of itself, but actually rested its decision on the fact that the speech was not done at school or utilizing school facilities to submit the posts as not within the schools authority concerning school related activities. I would like to not have to re-invent the wheel here, and maybe a bit lazy, but I'm sure someone on here has drafted a brief in response to a Motion to Dismiss based upon First Amendment grounds which would basically make the ordinance unusable, unconstitutional. Any help would be appreciated. Kenneth L. Dominic Attorney at Law 12301 Kingsgate Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73170 Office: (405) 620-6013 The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2512. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or by replying to the message and deleting it and all of its attachments from your computer. This information does not form an attorney-client relationship and receipt of this communication by a non intended party does not waive any attorney-client privilege.