ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
DEFENDANT AWCC Exhibit C-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

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

CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

DEPOSITION OF S. W. SMITH
Taken on behalf of the Defendants.

DATE TAKEN: May 27, 1998
TIME: 1:00 - 1:20 PM
PLACE: 930 S. Harbor City Blvd.
Melbourne, Florida

Examination of the witness taken before:

Lisa Gerlach, Court Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at Large

King Reporting Service, Inc.
14 Suntree Place, Suite 101
Viera, Florida 32940

WHEREUPON, S.W. SMITH, a Witness herein, acknowledged having been duly sworn and testified upon his oath as follows:

THE WITNESS: I do.

EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS:

Q. Will you state your name, please?

A. Officer Steven Wayne Smith, ID No. 238.

Q. What is your current job, sir?

A. Patrol officer for the Melbourne Police Department.

Q. Do you work for the City of Melbourne?

A. Yes, sir; I do.

Q. Who controls and orders what the nature of your work is, your supervisor?

A. Starts with the city manager and follows down the chain of command to the chief to the major to lieutenants and sergeants.

Q. Do you have any other employment other than working for the city?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Could you give us a brief summary of your years of experience and training in the police field?

A. I was hired on April 23rd, 1990 by the City of Melbourne in the capacity of a patrol officer. Since then I've attended several schools, job - related schools, became a defensive tactics instructor, SWAT Team member, worked on various shifts from evening shifts, midnight shift and also day shift.

Q. Did there come a time in the past when you were assigned to do some work around the Aware Woman Clinic?

A. Yes, sir; there was.

Q. When did that first start?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Roughly, as best you can recall. What year for a start?

A. Possibly 1991.

Q. Could you tell us roughly how many times, how many different days over the course from then until now you were assigned to that particular work at the Aware Woman Clinic?

A. It was several. I'd have to say in excess of twenty-five to thirty.

Q. Let me show you a diagram here, that we'll mark as Exhibit No. 1. It's out of 626 Southern Reporter 682. That's out of the Supreme Court of Florida's decision involving the enforcement of the injunction around the Aware Woman Clinic.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. LUCAS:

Q. (Continued) Could you make a mark on there as to where you in particular were assigned to be? And I understand it might be in a lot of different places.

A. Correct. We were there to enforce the buffer zone; and typically -- there's a mailbox just to the west of the main parking lot. And generally the patrol officers would station their cruiser just to the west of that mailbox.

Q. What were your duties and responsibilities when you were assigned there?

A. To, above all, ensure the peace of the whole area of the Aware Woman Clinic and also to witness any violations of the buffer zone.

Q. Did you ever have occasion to enforce laws there also involving inserting solicitation material into vehicles? Did that ever come up?

A. Yes.

Q. What generally does that involve?

A. In order to prevent the free movement of a vehicle from either accessing or exiting the driveway and the parking lot of the Aware Woman Clinic. That's a violation under state statute.

Q. Is there also a violation if people trying to stuff written material into the window of a car that's going in or going out? Was that something else you were involved in enforcing at all?

A. I believe that's generally what we ended up doing is just the free access.

Q. Let me refer you to the state traffic law 316.2055 that says, "motor vehicles throwing advertising materials," and ask you if you had any occasion to enforce that against anyone at the time you were there?

A. I'm familiar with that; however, I don't believe that I enforced that.

Q. Okay. Would you describe the scene around the area, what you observed during the course of a typical day during the days that you were assigned to that area; and in particular, what Meredith Raney's role was, if any, in the activities going on there?

A. There would typically be several people on the south side of Dixie Way, of 1575 Dixie Way; and they would be holding signs, jars of an. unknown liquid, which had what appeared to be a fetus in it, people gathering to pray, and people would walk from the south side to the north side over to the sidewalk that's located in front of the Aware Woman Clinic; and they would either sit there and pray, congregate, walk up and down east to west on the sidewalk, crossing the driveway of the parking lot to Aware Woman Clinic attempting to hand out literature.

Q. Did you often see people violating the buffer zone?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you often see people trying to stuff literature into people's cars as they were coming in and out?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was Mr. Raney's role that you observed?

A. I saw Mr. Raney several times at 1575 Dixie Way. And I saw him several times cross over Dixie Way within the thirty-six foot buffer zone of the Aware Woman Clinic. And there's a few times in which I confronted Mr. Raney and even mentioned to him that he knew he was not allowed to be within the thirty-six foot buffer zone, in which he agreed. I asked him several times to exit the buffer zone, in which he refused; and subsequently, I ended up arresting him.

Q. Did he have clear notice of the injunction, as far as you know within your own knowledge?

A. Yes. Several times on the PA system either the officer assigned to the detail or the supervisor would read the injunction over the PA symptom of the patrol vehicle.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Raney videotaping patients and vehicles going in and out of there with a video camera?

A. I remember several people with a video camera. I truthfully could not distinguish and remember Mr. Raney himself.

Q. Can you remember any particular individuals associated
with copying license plates?

A. Yes.

Q. Whom would those individuals be?

A. Trying to think.

Q. Who or whom, I never can get that straight.

A. Meredith Raney would do it; also Mr. Lestourgeon. I forget Mr. Lestourgeon's first name.

Q. Would it be the older one, William?

A. William Lestourgeon, yes. He would constantly be documenting license plates.

Q. Did either Mr. Raney or anyone else ever articulate why they were doing that?

A. They felt as though that the Aware Woman Clinic and their employees were murdering children.

Q. What did copying the license plate have to do with what Mr. Raney was doing? What was he doing that for?

A. By Florida law, it is the right to know. They're able to take the license plates and get the occupant's, the owner's, information and then send out literature to the listed address.

Q. Did you hear anything about their following up and contacting these patients and other people?

A. Not directly from them; however, I do recall patients coming back and stating that they had received literature in the mail.

Q. Did any patients ever complain to you about being followed or being contacted at home?

A. No, sir.

Q. Could you describe in what ways that house on the south side of Dixie Way was utilized by Mr. Raney and other people?

A. They would normally congregate there en masse. They would hold prayer sessions there, allow people to have posters and banners and signs, which would be against abortion and against the Aware Woman Clinic and the doctors.

Q. Do you know whether they stored any kind of records there of the records they were making of patients' license plates?

A. That I don't know.

Q. Did you ever have any occasion to go into the house?

A. No, sir; I have not.

Q. Do you know if they had any kind of contraband or chemicals or explosives or anything in there?

A. I have no knowledge of that.

Q. During the time that you were assigned off and on to this particular area, would you describe Mr. Raney as being only an occasional visitor or a regular participant?

A. He'd be a regular participant.

Q. Was he one of the most regular?

A. Yes, he would be.

Q. What would you say was your earliest month and year of when you were assigned to this project, if you recall that?

A. I wouldn't even be able to recall.

Q. Would it be as early as 1991?

A. It could be.

Q. Was there any kind of book or listing that you had of protesters that were particularly regular and were subject to be arrested if they came into the buffer zone?

A. I believe that we were given a pamphlet from the department listing the regular people, the ones that were named within the federal ruling of the buffer zone.

Q. How would you know to stop people who were not specifically named in the injunction, but who were in participation or in concert? How would you know --

A. Whoever I saw participating and helping to organize with the people listed within that injunction.

Q. Did you often see Mr. Raney participating in organizing with the people in the injunction?

A. Yes, sir; I did.

Q. Did you ever see anyone associated with the clinic, Mr. Windle or Mrs. Windle; did you ever see them threaten Meredith Raney in any way?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Did Mr. Windle or Mrs. Windle ever urge you to arrest Mr. Raney?

A. No, they did not.

Q. You were not employed by the Aware Woman Clinic in any way?

A. That's correct. I was employed by the Melbourne Police Department.

Q. Let's show the videotape. This is a videotape that was produced by Mr. Raney of the three arrests that he complained about. I think we've got it to the start of the one that you're the arresting officer in. I'll ask you to comment on it as it goes, since the Court already has it,, and tell us what you're seeing and if this is an accurate representation of what appeared to be happening here.

(Videotape being published to the Witness.)

BY MR. LUCAS:
Q. (Continued) Is that Mr. Raney in the middle of the picture?

A. Yes; he's in the blue jacket.

Q. Have you seen yourself there yet?

A. Yes; I am the officer sitting on the patrol vehicle.

Q. Is that Mr. Raney crossing the street?

A. Yes.

Q. Is he heading toward the buffer zone?

A. Yes, sir; he is.

Q. Is that you who said, "May I help you, sir?"

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Did you go over and warn him or anything at that time?

A. Yes, I did. And there I'd be calling it in to our police dispatcher advising the communications center that somebody had just entered into the buffer zone. This is where I would be warning Mr. Raney that he entered the buffer zone and injunction; and I'm asking him to leave. As you can see, I'm motioning him away and to go back across the' street. I gave Mr. Raney several chances and asked him several times to leave the court-ordered buffer zone, in which he failed to comply with.

Q. Did you see the Windles around there at all that day?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Do you see them in the video anywhere?

A. Not in the video; no, sir.

Q. Did you have any impression of whether or not Mr. Raney was trying to get arrested that day?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you see anything unusual about his behavior?

A. He just was adamant in the fact that he felt it was his right to stay within the buffer zone, especially after me asking him several times to leave and he would not comply. And subsequently I arrested him.

Q. Were the US Marshalls around that day?

A. What day is this?

Q. January 24th, 1996. Would you refer to the --

A. I recall the US Marshalls being ordered there for a period of time. Whether it was on January 24th of 1996, I can't recall.

Q. Could you refresh your recollection with the police report that's in front of you. We'll make that Exhibit No. 2 to your deposition.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. LUCAS:
Q. Is that a copy of your police report?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. You mentioned in your report, on the second page,. about the premises of 1575 Dixie Highway being used to stage protests?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you see frequent protests staged out of there?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Is it accurate then, what you have in the report here, that you have witnessed Mr. Raney in the past in the company of Bruce Cadle, who is listed in the injunction?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Raney had been incarcerated for violating the injunction in the past?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Let's show the rest of the video. Did you find anything interesting in his pockets, any contraband of any sort?

A. I don't believe so. I'd have to go back to the property receipt.

Q. Was there any doubt in your mind about having full probable cause to arrest him?

A. There was no doubt whatsoever.

Q. Just got a few more questions as soon as that tape runs to the end. Were you ever called to testify in court in the prosecution of this particular incident that you are --

A. Of this particular incident, I don't recall. There was a mass trial with several defendants, in which I would have to identify in court, in which Michelle Jackson was the state attorney.

Q. Did you ever have to deal with the issue of some patients coming in who had their license plates covered?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was the policy of the city with regard to patients who wanted to protect their privacy by covering their plates?

A. It was pretty much officer discretion. If we wanted to issue a traffic citation, we could; or we could tell them as soon as you're about a block away to remove the obscurity.

Q. Did you ever see any patients who were coming in who appeared to turn away and leave out of fear of what was going on on the south side of the street?

A. That I don't recall.

Q. Did you ever hear any talk from Mr. Raney about trying to close down the clinic?

A. To close down the Aware Woman Clinic in general, I don't recall; however, putting a complete end to abortions, yes, several times; which could be construed as closing down the Aware Woman Clinic.

Q. Do you imagine that stopping abortion completely would invariably stop the clinic?

A. Yes, that's correct.

MR. LUCAS: I have no further questions. Thank you very much.

(The reading and signing of this deposition were not waived.)
(These proceedings concluded at 1:20 PM.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

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

CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

 DEPOSITION OF CHIEF KETIH CHANDLER

Taken on behalf of the Defendants.

DATE TAKEN: May 27, 1998
TIME: 2:00 - 2:55 PM
PLACE: 930 S. Harbor City Blvd. Melbourne, Florida

Examination of the witness taken before:

Lisa Gerlacht, Court Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at Large

King Reporting Service, Inc.
14 Suntree Place, Suite 101
Viera, Florida 32940

WHEREUPON, CHIEF KEITH CHANDLER, a Witness herein, acknowledged having been duly sworn and testified upon his oath as follows:

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS:

Q. Could you state your name, sir?

A. Keith Chandler.

Q. What is your current position?

A. I'm the Chief of Police, City of Melbourne.

Q. Are you employed by the City of Melbourne?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any other employment?

A. I teach part-time at various places.

Q. How long have you been with the police department here?

A. Just over twelve and a half years.

Q. Have you been involved with the enforcement of injunctions and laws pertaining to the Aware Woman Clinic?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. When did you first become involved in that?

A. For all intents and purposes, approximately just under twelve and a half years ago -- over twelve and a half years ago. As far as an injunction is concerned, for a period of time of, I guess, approximately two years; within the last several-year timeframe.

Q. What is the scope of the current enforcement policy of the city in enforcing the injunction?

A. Okay. To begin with, we're not enforcing the injunction unless we have a named party in violation of the injunction.

Q. Are you not enforcing it against people who were in-concert or in participation with the originally-named parties any longer?

A. That's a subject of debate. Our policy is that our practice is that we would enforce a named party and somebody that we could categorically prove was acting in concert, yes.

Q. Was there a time when the policy involved more vigorous enforcement of in-concert people?

A. I don't.agree with the term vigorous.

Q. Broader enforcement, I should say.

A. There was a time when, based upon the dictates of the courts, we were enforcing anybody who entered into the buffer zone, yes.

Q. When and why did that policy change?

A. The policy changed when the courts began to rule against the broader interpretation of the terms of the injunction.

Q. Was this the state trial courts?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Has the injunction, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, ever been modified by that court, as far as you know?

A. By the state courts?

Q. By the US Supreme Court.

A. The Supreme Court, I can't say they've modified it. They certainly have affected enforcement were enforcement to take place. There were aspects of the injunction that we felt were constitutional and that we enforced. There were aspects of the injunction that we were concerned about and we didn't. And ultimately the Supreme Court tended to render the same type of opinion that we had held in respect to our enforcement posture.

Q. As far as you know, as opposed to lower courts making modifications, has the US Supreme Court itself changed anything from its 1994 --

A. I guess I don't understand the tone of the question. The Supreme Court did rule unconstitutional the floating aspects of the injunction.

Q. But the Supreme Court did sustain the thirty-six foot buffer zone?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. It's not a trick question. Just the point I was asking you about was whether the injunction, which the US Supreme Court upheld, whether that has ever been modified by the US Supreme Court itself as --

A. The Supreme Court has not -- well -- yes. The Supreme Court hasn't modified aspects of the injunction, but it certainly deemed aspects of the injunction being unconstitutional, yes.

Q. What is the current policy of the city on what you have to show for probable cause to enforce the injunction against people who are not named in the injunction?

A. We need a clear name and a clear establishment of the relationship before we would enforce the injunction.

Q. Was the injunction enforced at any times or many times against a Mr. Meredith Raney?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the basis for Mr. Raney being brought within the injunction?

A. We believed under the terms of the original injunction and as a result of convictions on other types of behaviors that Mr. Raney was involved in, including, I believe, Mr. Raney -- I would have to go back and review the records to be sure of that that he was acting in concert.. So he was brought before the Court for acting in concert.

Q. Was there any evidence that he had been involved in actions with Operation Rescue from its outset?

A. I don't know of any direct evidence one way or the other whether he had been acting in direct relationship with Operation Rescue or not.

Q. Would you have any evidence of his being involved in that Impact Training Program?

A. Yes, he was involved in that.

Q. Was he involved as a student or as a participate or in what respect, if you know; or all of the above?

A. To begin with, I never went to any of the training sessions; so I don't know whether Meredith Raney was a student or whether he was an instructor at the training sessions. What I can tell you is that Mr. Raney took an active role in events at the clinic; which would tend to make one believe, based upon behaviors, that he wasn't acting as a student.

Q. Can you give us a year when he first started taking an active role in the protest activities around the clinic?

A. In direct relationship to the injunction, it was immediate. When the injunction -- I'd have to look up the year I believe it was -- I'd have to look up the year.

Q. Would you have an approximation of how many times he's been convicted of protest activities around the clinic?

A. Several.

Q. Has he ever been brought in for extensive interrogation pertaining to his activities around there?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. I'm trying not to ask any questions about any ongoing investigations. Since I have two uncles who are police chiefs, I'm sensitive to this. Has he been interrogated concerning any of the acid following doctors, people following, I believe, patients. But as to whether or not they directly relate to Mr. Raney, I quite frankly would have to go back and read the case reports, if there were any done, to make a determination as to whether he was cited as a possible suspect or not.

Q. Let me show you this letter and we'll mark that as Exhibit No. 1 to your deposition. It's a letter from the City Manager that you are copied into. My question will be whether or not this fairly reflects the tenure of the city enforcement of the injunction and buffer zone and the purpose behind that.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)

A. Okay. Your question again?

BY MR. LUCAS:
Q. Was whether this letter fairly reflects the city's enforcement policy of the injunction?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. I saw in the Florida Supreme Court Decision, involving this particular injunction, a reference to an incident where a person followed a doctor and, from the adjoining vehicle, pretended to shoot him, to use the words of the Florida Supreme Court. Is that something that ever became a subject of an investigation by the Melbourne Police, assuming that took place in this area?

A. Yes, I recall that.

Q. What was the nature of that investigation? What
offense would that fall under, such as threats or something like
that?

A. If anything could be made of that, I would suspect that it would be, depending upon the level and degree of the following and behavior, some type of a stalking violation.

Q. Would that be a misdemeanor or a felony?

A. Again, it would depend on how long it had gone on, what happened, those types of things. This one incident probably would fall into the misdemeanor category.

Q. Do you recall whether this particular person who was accused of this was Mr. Raney?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. Does your department also enforce the laws pertaining to obstructing traffic and throwing soliciting materials or pushing soliciting materials into vehicles?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. Have many arrests been made-under the soliciting materials stuffed into vehicles at the aware Woman clinic?

A. That would be a traffic citation; and we have made some. I can't tell you how many we've made.

Q. What has been the city's policy on allowing people to cover up their license plates when they're coming to the clinicor after they leave?

Defendant's Exhibit No. 1

City of Melbourne
900 East Strawbridge Ave.
Melbourne, Florida 32901
(407)727-2900
(Fax) 952-1180

June 22, 1995,

Mr. William LeStourgeon
P.O. Box 020396
Melbourne, FL 32902-0396

Dear Mr. LeStourgeon:

The mission of City of Melbourne Police officer's stationed at the Aware Woman's Clinic is to maintain the integrity of the Court sanctioned buffer zone, to maintain order, ensure legal ingress and egress to and from the Clinic, to protect the rights of property owners, clients, employees and protestors, and to enforce violations of law occurring in their presence that would not require their departure from the Clinic area proper.

Officers are assigned there based on the possibility of a problem occurring. As you know, Melbourne Officers are not present all of the time. If an Officer is assigned at the site, having them depart the premises for purposes of off site traffic enforcement would be an ill-advised decision, and contrary to the maintenance of order at and around the Clinic area proper.

Sincerely,
Henry J. Hill <signed>
City Manager
c: K. Chandler, Police Chief

|TOP OF PAGE| |HOME| |DISCLAIMER| |SEARCH| |LINKS| |NEWS|
|EMAIL US| |SUNTREE| |AWARE WOMAN| |ABORTIONISTS| |LAWSUITS|
|VICTIMS OF CHOICE| |SURVIVORS| |INVESTIGATIONS|