Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Charlotte City Officials Seize Cities4Life Private Property Without a Warrant

"I feel constitutionally violated," Daniel Parks, Cities4Life Executive Director said after Charlotte City officials seized two of Cities4Life signs. "I don't feel like my constitutional rights are protected in the city of Charlotte. To imagine the city has the right to seize private property without a warrant is very unsettling."

Official taking private property without a warrant

One of our volunteers on the sidewalks of the southeast's busiest abortion center was holding two signs in the legally prescribed manner near his car. A policeman arrived while I was speaking on the microphone. The police come every day to check that we have the legally required sound permit. (We don't use the sound system if we don't have the permit.) The sign-holding volunteer was the permit holder. Daniel Parks, seeing the policeman approach the sound system alerted our volunteer to please get the permit and bring it to the officer.

The volunteer put down the signs, turned them facing his car and leaned them against the curbside of his vehicle. His car was parked on the curb of a wide street where at least three cars can easily pass abreast of each other. He got out the permit and walked across the street to stand near the sound system, waiting for the policeman to approach. The total elapsed time that the volunteer was away from the signs was approximately ten minutes, allowing the officer to approach him, look at the permit, and exchange a few pleasantries.

When the volunteer turned back around to return to his car, city officials from the zoning department were already walking to the signs from their car parked some distance up the street. The office of these city officials is estimated by Mapquest to be 14-17 minutes from the abortion center in light traffic. That means the officials received a call by the pro-choice defense team, leaped in their car, probably exceeded the speed limit or used a 5th dimension portal, and ran to the signs to get there in ten minutes. Either that, or they were lurking nearby, awaiting a call. They responded beautifully to the dire emergency of signs leaning for ten-minutes against a car parked on the curb. Thank God for our quick response Zoning Officials!

Two other officials tried to confiscate the sign of another volunteer. While he was holding it with two hands as prescribed by the city, the bottom of the sign was apparently touching the ground. This is VERY DANGEROUS and no city official in their right mind would let this infraction go unpunished. When the city officials tried to confiscate Patrick's sign, they told him it was because he could not let the sign touch the ground. As they tried to take it, Patrick put his sign down, and sat on it.

Patrick defense of his private property rights despite the dangerous precedent of letting all parts of a sign touch the ground. Thankfully, no immediate catastrophes ensued from this gross overreach of safe sign behavior

He didn't speak much except to say that he was a veteran, and they were violating his 4th amendment rights he joined the military to preserve. The city official told him sitting on the sign was okay, and did not try to remove him or the sign forcibly. It could be they ran back to the office to research the 4th amendment.

Meanwhile, Daniel followed the official who had confiscated our signs demanding to see a warrant for the seizure of his property. This is what the official finally handed Daniel:

In case you can't read this "warrant", it says:
Section 19-241. Obstructions
It shall be unlawful to place or maintain an unnecessary obstruction in the public right of way. The city may require the person who has placed or maintains an obstruction in violation of this section to remove the obstruction and repair or restore the right of way within a reasonable period. of time, which time shall be set in consideration of the harm or risk created by the obstruction and the effort and expense of removal. In addition, the city may summarily remove an obstruction and charge the expense of the removal, restoration, and repair to the person who placed or maintained the obstruction.

Harm or risk? Remember, the signs were leaning against the curbside of a parked car for ten minutes.  Also keep in mind this is a 3-4 car width wide street with most of the curbside empty. The only thing those signs were obstructing was the smooth path of an inchworm across the car's side.

Vicky pondering a sign which was NOT seized despite clear violation of logic and the sign ordinance

Meanwhile, this sign in the picture above was right along the path of the brave zoning official clearing our city of obstructions that could cause imminent harm or risk to Charlotte citizens. The sign said "Keep off the grass". This is a clear violation of logic since the sign itself was not keeping off the grass, but the city has no ordinances about illogical sign usage (yet). Nonetheless, that sign which was breaking rules of logic AND the sign ordinance requiring someone to be HOLDING the sign was NOT seized and put in sign jail. Perhaps the official preferred that message to the one our signs proclaimed. Whatever the reason, that sign not being held and on the ground in CLEAR VIOLATION of the city sign ordinance was not seized. All signs are apparently NOT equal under Charlotte city zoning law.

By the way, don't lose sight of the fact that just a hundred feet away, four dozen or so little living human beings were being dismembered by an abortionist. Good thing the doctor of destruction didn't let a sign touch the ground in his operating chambers or those zoning officials would have been on him like vultures on a dead skunk.

Even with our signs seized, our attention distracted, and the hot sun beating down on us since the city officials had seized our shade canopy a few weeks ago, four mothers left the abortion center without killing their babies! Four babies saved from the forces that would find it illegal to let a sign touch the ground, but not illegal to dismember a living human child without anesthesia or even perhaps a molecule of shame.

Dangerous subversive sign holders pray before offering help to women in crisis

If you are a constitutional lawyer and would be interested in taking this case pro-bono, we would be grateful for your help. Please contact Daniel Parks at
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.


  1. Weren't you saying a few weeks ago how much your team respected the police and the laws? It seems like you only respect the laws that benefit you, the ones you don't like are stupid and pointless in your mind. Can you imagine if a person of color sat down on his sign and refused police/city officials while citing the 4th amendment...I think we all know how that would end.

  2. Anonymous...are you kidding me right now!!! I hate to tell you that this has nothing to do with race or color so any person of any color could come sit on their sign. Anyone can see that blatant ridiculousness in this situation. Why was the sign to keep off the grass ignored??? It was clearly touching the ground? Only the one of a beautiful baby was taken? I wasn't there BUT I can assure you that this kind of reverse discrimination will do nothing but upset those of us who have not been out there but who think this ridiculous and petty beyond words. My goal is to spread the word about this far and wide, then we who have sat at home instead of joining this group will come out in full force...peacefully and to the full extent that the law allows!! And we will come with our own legal disclosures and copy of laws and amendments to share with those who seek to stifle our voices and stomp out our rights to peacefully assemble, protest, sing, carry signs etc. etc. I'll even bring an attorney or two just for good measure!!

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[4]

    The text of the amendment is brief, and most of the law determining what constitutes an unlawful search and seizure is found in court rulings. The brief definitions of the terms "search" and "seizure" was concisely summarized in United States v. Jacobsen, which said that the Fourth Amendment:

    "protects two types of expectations, one involving 'searches', the other 'seizures'. A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. A seizure of property occurs where there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property."[5]