June 1985

Page 3

METROPARKS SUIT RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

By RICK BERG

The lawsuit filed by four Cleveland area gay men against the Cleveland Metroparks has been reassigned to federal court Judge Alice Batchelder and is expected to be heard soon.

The plaintiffs are charging that the Metroparks' practice of entrapping gay men into sex acts within the parks is an unconstitutinal violation of their civil rights.

At question in the case is a campaign by Metropark rangers, apparently designed to harass any men whom they think might be gay.

In most reported cases, a plainclothes ranger approaches a targeted man, strikes up a conversation, and invites sexual contact, usually suggesting that they retreat to a secluded wooded area. Upon reaching the suggested area, the plainclothes ranger typically shows his badge and takes the targeted man into custody.

In another common scenario, a plainclothes ranger loiters in one of the park restrooms, displaying interest in a targeted man's genitals. If he expresses an interest in sexual contact, the ranger takes him into custody.

Such reports by men victimized by the Metroparks'

Testing

Continued from p. 1

testing program, warning that information about persons seeking medical

treatment after the tests

can be abused. He urged gay men to avoid the test until more is known about its significance; and in the meantime to practice safe

sex.

Morledge-Richardson noted that 21 cases of AIDS have been officially reported. for Cuyahoga County, 18 of them in Cleveland. Although the relatively small number of cases makes this a lowincidence urban area, Dr. Leonard Calabrese, of Cleveland Clinic, suggested that these figures reflect a late rate of increase, rather

. than a slow rate.

entrapment practices date as far back as 1975. Hundreds of such cases have been reported over the last ten years, and contnue to the present.

This indicates a long-term and well thought-out campaign by the Metroparks to harass gay men. It requires the existence of a special detail of rangers trained to dress and behave like gay men to such a degree that they are convincing.

The cost of such a campaign in time and money is more than negligible. This cost is borne by all taxpayers in greater Cleveland-including those men whom the program is designed to harass.

Singling out gay men for harassment and prosecution may well violate the Constitution's requirement for equal treatment under the law. Decoy rangers are not used to entrap men assumed to be straight, nor are they used to entrap women, either lesbian or straight.

Because homosexualiy is not illegal in Ohio, legal grounds for this discriminatory targeting of gay men seem nonexistent. The only apparent explanation for this anti-gay program is homophobia in the upper ranks of the Metroparks administration. Gay men taken into custody by decoy rangers have been subjected to threats, ridicule, and other abuse indicating the

presence of homophobia among the ranger staff as well.

The suit states that the laws under which gay men are usually charged by Parks officials are inappropriate. The laws most often used are state laws against sexual imposition and public indecency.

The Sexual Imposition law states that the offender must know or have reason to know that the sexual contact is offensive to the other person. Since the decoy ranger leads his target to believe that he desires the contact, it is likely that the targeted man has not broken the Sexual Imposition law.

Ohio's Public Indecency statute is the other law commonly used to arrest gay men. This law penalizes reckless public displays which are "likely to be viewed by and affront others." It is certainly arguable that any act performed in a secluded wooded area or a deserted restroom is not likely to be viewed by others, and therefore not likely to affront them. So much for the actual guilt of the men victimized by this special detail of Metroparks rangers.

When news of this lawsuit reached the local lesbian/gay community last August, reaction was somewhat negative. A common opinion was that the suit claimed the right to have public sex in

DROFFITT

VDHANA RICHARDSON

Cleveland Commissioner of Health, Dr. Morledge-Richardson looks on as Dr. Max Proffitt of the Cleveland Clinic explains the lab portion of the HLTV III antibody test.

the Metroparks. This perception is grossly inaccurate. The basic right to enjoy public parks free of unusual and discriminatory harassment is at question here.

Many basic constitutional rights are routinely violated by the Metroparks' homophobic program.

The suit charges that the Parks' program anounts to unconstitutional intrusion into personal integrity, deprivation of liberty without due process of law, denial of equal protection under the law, interference with associational autonomy, violation of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and invasion of privacy.

Hundreds of men have been arrested as a result of this homophobic program. Many have pleaded "guilty" or "no contest" to avoid publicity. They have been fined and, in some cases jailed. These men have been threatened and abused. They have been labelled "sex offenders" and "perverts."

If the lawsuit is successful, these unconstitutional and homophobic practices will be stopped by federal court, and damages will be awarded to the plaintiffs. If this suit is not successful, the Emerald Necklace will remain an enclave in which homosexuality is still illegal in practice, in violation of state law and the United States Constitution.

A

MARCH ON JUNE 30

WITH

THOUSANDS

NGTF Chief

Continued from p. 1

are open to anyone 21 and older, and are free of charge.

Levi previously lived in northeastern Ohio while he was a student at Oberlin College. He was a legislative assistant to State Senator Charles Butts (D-23) until Butts fired him for being gay, Levi told The Chronicle last month.