Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Court: Government Can Ban Rave Paraphernalia
June 24, 2003

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal judge's ruling that prohibited the government from banning glow sticks and pacifiers at raves, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported June 21.

The ruling referred to a plea-bargain deal reached in a criminal case against a rave promoter at the State Palace Theater in New Orleans. In 2001, the government began investigating rave promoters to crack down on the all-night dance parties, known for attracting illegal drugs like ecstasy.

Barbecue of New Orleans, which promotes raves at the State Palace Theater, was charged with violating the federal "crack-house" law. The company was fined $100,000 and put on probation for five years. Robert Brunet, president of Barbecue of New Orleans, also said he would ban glow sticks, vapor rub, pacifiers, dust masks, and other rave paraphernalia from future parties.

The ban caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed a civil lawsuit against the government. The suit claimed that the ban violated the First Amendment rights of rave attendees.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous sided with the ACLU and ruled that federal prosecutors could not enforce the ban as part of the plea bargain. In his ruling, Porteous said, "The government cannot keep legal items out of places because of illegal activities they associate with those items."

But in the appeal, the government said Brunet was asked to "take reasonable steps to prohibit" glow sticks. A complete ban was not required.

"The ACLU stuck its nose where it didn't belong," said Acting U.S. Attorney Jim Letten. "And the 5th Circuit said, 'You represent a third party. You do not have a right to interfere in a judicial process.'"

The case goes back to Porteous to be dismissed.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines