Sign Up for Vincent AI
Coley-Pearson v. Martin
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Emily Misty Martin and Coffee County. Dkt. No. 69. This case has been thoroughly litigated by excellent lawyers who have briefed and contested a dozen aspects of First Amendment law. Ultimately, the Defendants prevail on the First Amendment claim for the most basic reasons briefed by the parties: the Criminal Trespass Warning Plaintiff complains violated her First Amendment right was neither drafted nor issued by either of the remaining Defendants. For the sake of thoroughness, the Court has wrestled with the alternative arguments. Upon close examination, Defendants prevail.
Plaintiff Olivia Coley-Pearson, a city commissioner in Douglas, Georgia, is actively involved in helping people in Coffee County exercise their right to vote. Dkt. No. 72 at 15:8-14, 29:10-15, 80:5-8, 81:19-25, 132:24-135:8, 201:5-11, 229:18-30. On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff visited a Coffee County voting precinct located at 224 West Ashley Street, in Douglas, Georgia (the "Polling Place") on at least two occasions. Dkt. No. 72 at 29:20-22, 32:5-8, 37:10-15, 52:1-22, 53:5-10; Dkt. No. 69-4. First, Plaintiff completed paperwork to assist a voter, Crystal Hill, whom Plaintiff accompanied to a voting machine. Dkt. No. 72 at 37:10-15. Second, Plaintiff drove another voter, Rolanda Williams, to the Polling Place. Id. at 52:1-22, 53:5-10; Dkt. No. 69-4.
During Plaintiff's visit to the Polling Place with Hill, after Hill voted, Plaintiff walked with Hill to a ballot scanner machine where Plaintiff asked a poll worker, Ms. JoAnne Andrews, "what were the red and green buttons for." Dkt. No. 72. at 39:12-25, 40:1-5, 99:10-13. According to Plaintiff, Andrews responded that "she did not know." Id. at 99:14-18.
Afterwards, Defendant Emily Misty Martin, who at the time was an elections supervisor for Defendant Coffee County Board of Elections ("Coffee County" or "Board of Elections"), dkt. no. 75 at 83:3-8, approached Plaintiff "and began hollering" at her in a loud, firm voice, telling Plaintiff, "don't touch any buttons," dkt. no. 72 at 40:14-16, 45:13-18, 99:19-23, 100:2-9. Plaintiff then asked Defendant Martin what the buttons on the machine were for, and Defendant Martin responded that she did not know, to which Plaintiff replied, "so you're the supervisor and you don't know?" Dkt. No. 72 at 46:13-15. Defendant Martin continued to "holler[ ] to the top of her lungs" and "hollered out, call 911." Id. at 46:11-16. As Plaintiff made her way to the Polling Place's exit, Defendant Martin continued to yell at Plaintiff, stating, "that's what you got in trouble for before." Id. at 46:22-25, 105:18-25. At that point, Plaintiff yelled at Defendant Martin, "you told a lie before like you're telling a lie now." Id. at 47:2-3, 104:17-25.
After Plaintiff left, City of Douglas Police Officer Joe Stewart reported to the Polling Place "and [was] asked to ban [Plaintiff] from the premises." Dkt. No. 69-4; Dkt. No. 72 at 117:14-118:15; see generally Dkt. No. 69-5 (). The audio recording of Officer Stewart's bodycam reflects Officer Stewart making the initial suggestion that Plaintiff be banned from the Polling Place "unless she is actually voting." Dkt. No. 85, Ex. 3, at 0:04:47. Then, Defendant Martin responds that Plaintiff is "impeding [Defendant Martin's] ability to do [her] job," and states, "that's in the code book." Id. at 0:05:06. Defendant Martin then informs Officer Stewart that Hill, the voter Plaintiff had assisted, is not illiterate, despite Plaintiff's representation that Hill could not read or write English, and that Plaintiff touched buttons on the ballot scanner machine. Id. at 0:07:35-0:09:00. Defendant Martin then states to Officer Stewart, Id. at 0:09:52.
Officer Stewart conducted his own investigation and determined that Plaintiff had allegedly touched buttons on the voting machine and had an "intense verbal exchange" with [Defendant] Martin. Dkt. No. 76 at 19:20-20:25; Dkt. No. 69-5 at 4-5 (); Dkt. No. 85, Ex. 3, at 0:16:18 (Officer Stewart's conversation with City of Douglas Chief of Police at the time, Shane Edmisten, determining next steps and discussing issuing a criminal trespass warning). Officer Stewart and Chief Edmisten then told Defendant Martin to contact the county attorney and a majority of the members of the Board of Elections to ensure Defendant Martin had the authority to request a trespass warning. Dkt. No. 85, Ex. 3, at 0:20:44, 0:28:40. Coffee County Board of Elections member Ernestine Clark, who was present during the incident, agreed that Defendant Martin had that authority, and members Matthew McCullough and Eric Chaney agreed via phone, in Officer Stewart's presence, that Defendant Martin had that authority. Dkt. No. 76 at 23:4-24:18.
Later that same day, Plaintiff returned to the Polling Place with the second voter, Williams, whom Plaintiff drove to the Board of Elections office to retrieve an identification card so that Williams could vote. Dkt. No. 72 at 52:1-25.
Once Plaintiff returned to the Polling Place, Officer Stewart was called back there, and upon his arrival Defendant Martin informed Plaintiff that she was "banned from this parking lot, banned from this premises." Dkt. No. 78, Ex. E, at 0:01:30 (bodycam audio of Plaintiff's arrest). Officer Stewart then told Plaintiff he needed to provide her with some paperwork regarding the ban and asked for Plaintiff's identification card. Id. at 0:01:40. Plaintiff then informed Officer Stewart that Williams wanted to get an identification card, and Officer Stewart told Plaintiff that Williams was free to go get her card, but that Plaintiff needed to "stay here with [him]," because she was banned for disruptive behavior. Id. at 0:01:50. At this point, Plaintiff responds "she's telling a lie," and again refused Officer Stewart's request for her driver's license, while contesting the truthfulness of the accusations, asking how she was being disruptive, and what witnesses shared with Officer Stewart. Id. at 0:02:02-57. Officer Stewart then seemingly walked away to prepare "paperwork." Id.1
Officer Stewart then returned and informed Plaintiff that she was banned from any polling place in Coffee County and gave Plaintiff the Criminal Trespass Warning ("Criminal Trespass Warning" or the "Warning"). Dkt. No. 72 at 116:9-118:15; Dkt. No. 78, Ex. E, at 0:15:00; Dkt. No. 69-4. The Criminal Trespass Warning applies to the "PUBLIC Venue" located at "BOARD OF ELECTIONS 224 W ASHLEY ST, DOUGLAS, GA 31633," "during the time of voting or any other Board of Elections business," and includes "property not at 224 West Ashley Street but being lawfully used by the [B]oard." Dkt. No. 69-4. The Warning is directed only to Plaintiff and allows Plaintiff to be at a Coffee County polling place only to vote. Id.; Dkt. No. 72 at 119:14-22. The Warning states that "the above named person[, Plaintiff,] was advised that if they returned onto said property that they would be in violation of applicable provisions of Georgia law, O.C.G.A. § 16-7-21, prohibiting trespass, and be subject to arrest." Dkt. No. 69-4. A portion of the Warning labeled "additional comments," states:
On 10/27/2020 at 1132 hours I, Sergeant Joe Stewart, was summoned to 224 West Ashley Street and asked to ban [Plaintiff] from the premises. This also extends to any polling place that is controlled by the Coffee County Board of Elections during the time of voting or any other Board of Elections business. This will include property not at 224 West Ashley Street but being lawfully used by the [B]oard[.] [Plaintiff] is being banned for disruptive behavior. She may only come to a polling place in order to vote and she has already cast her ballot for this year[']s election. She was told that she was banned by election supervisor [Defendant] Misty Martin.
Id.; Dkt. No. 72 at 117:14-118:15 ().
After Officer Stewart explained the Warning's contents, Plaintiff asked him what the Warning was based on, to which Officer Stewart replied that his findings will be available in a police report that Plaintiff can request. Dkt. No. 78, Ex. E, at 0:15:00-0:15:31. Plaintiff continued to ask the basis of the Warning and asked Officer Stewart what she could do to raise her concerns regarding Defendant Martin yelling at her. Id. at 0:15:31-0:16:00. Officer Stewart then, again, asked Plaintiff to leave, but Plaintiff refused to leave until Williams could retrieve her identification card. Id. at 0:16:00-0:16:48. Accordingly, Officer Stewart, along with City of Douglas Officer Robert Sprinkle, arrested Plaintiff for refusing to leave the Polling Place after being asked to leave, in violation of the Criminal Trespass Warning. Id. at 0:16:48; Dkt. No. 72 at 120:3-12, Dkt. No. 87 ¶ 10. The decision to arrest Plaintiff was made "entirely" by Officer Stewart. Dkt. No. 76 at 72:1-5.
The 2020 General Election was held on November 3, 2020, and early in-person voting for the January 2021 runoff began on December 14, 2020. Accordingly, the Criminal Trespass Warning was in effect while voting was open from October 27 through November 3, 2020, and from December 14-17, 2020.
Plaintiff filed her complaint on December 11, 2020 against Defendant Martin in her official and individual capacity, Defendant Coffee County, by and through the Coffee County Board of Elections, the City...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting