Some may remember when John Medaglia, III (First Amendment
Protection Agency; FAPA) was detained/arrested several times, by the
same LEO on the same day. Link to arrest is provided.
Well, he sued and to nobody’s surprise he lost. Below are select
details from Medaglia v. Middleton, Civil Action 1:24-cv-532-MGL (D.S.C.
Oct. 23, 2024)
-Funny quotes in the official court record:
“Touch my dick” (details below) “You have just earned the State of
South Carolina a humungous lawsuit.” “My daddy is going to love to hear
this” “It’s not going to be good for you,” “Say goodbye to your
qualified immunity” “You are in so much trouble and I love it.”
-The court pointed out FAPA’s amended complaint was unverified
-The court pointed out that although FAPA claimed, without
supporting evidence, he “fear[ed for his] safety in an unsupervised
office with [Middleton],” the allegation does not appear consistent
with the recorded evidence.
-The city submitted BWC (body’s worn camera) footage of what
occurred after FAPA ended the video. What FAPA didn’t publish, but is
on body camera and in the official court record: “Plaintiff refuses to
get in the car, telling Middleton repeatedly to use force in addition to
other provocative statements, for example “touch my dick,” over the
course of the next several minutes.”
1A Claim:
-This was not a Forum Analysis case
-FAPA amended his complaint to include the City of New Ellenton;
FAPA alleged the city was responsible for the defendant’s alleged
misconduct.
-Citing Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694
(1978), the court held supervisory liability is generally inapplicable
to § 1983 suits, such that an employer or supervisor is not liable for
the acts of his employees, absent an official policy or custom that
results in an illegal action.
-The court pointed out FAPA’s did not provide any evidence that
supports his allegation the city had a policy or custom (typical
“auditor,” they love making allegations with zero evidence).
-In dismissing FAPA’s 1A claim, the court noted that even if the
City had a policy that restricts filming inside the government building,
it would not be in violation of the 1A.
-The court noted that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the
right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any
manner that may be desired” (Heffron v. Int’l. Soc. For Krishna
Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 647 (1981).
-Additionally, the court held that “neither this court, nor the
Supreme Court, nor any other circuit has recognized an unlimited First
Amendment right to film police free of otherwise reasonable limitations.
In fact, the circuits that recognized a right to film explicitly noted
that it may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions” (Hulbert v. Pope, 70 F.4th 726, 736 (4th Cir. 2023)
https://www.vlm.cem.va.gov/JOHNFRANCISMEDAGLIA/9ffb40
His Father:
JOHN FRANCIS MEDAGLIA
Aug 25, 1936 - Mar 26, 2022
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
