Whether a public preacher can be arrested for preaching in a public park with a religious sign and collection plate without violating First Amendment rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED On December 21, 2019, Petitioner preached at Love Park in Philadelphia with a sign “if you died tonight, do you know if you are going to heaven or hell?” Police said “take this out of here...are you up to one of your schemes?” and “you have to leave the park,” called him a “con artist,” and said “if you don’t leave I’m going to have to put the cuffs on you.” He was handcuffed, dragged & held for 30 minutes. They told him not to return. He was standing as much as 10 feet from the nearest booth. 1. Should the court resolve the split in the circuits on a requirement that a published decision interpret the law as police did to support the defense of mistake of law under Heinen v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60-63, 1385 S. Ct. 530, 541 (2014)? There this court limited the defense to “exceedingly rare,” situations where the application of the statute is unclear. Here the court, Grant v. City of Philadelphia, 637 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D. Pa. 2022, aff'd No. 22-3200, 2024 WL 1328312 (3d Cir. Mar. 28, 2024). found grounds for arrest under Phila. Code § 10-611 (4)(b)which bans solicitation within 8 feet of a business in a sidewalk. Petitioner was in a public park. He was standing as much as 10 feet from the nearest booth. No court ever held this applies to public parks. The statute is unambiguous. U.S. v Stanbridge, 813 F. 3d 1032, 1037 (CA 7, 2016). U.S. v Alvarado-Zarza, 782 F3d 246, 250 (CA 5 2015), United States v. Nicholson, 721 F.3d 1236, 1238 (10th Cir. 2018) and U.S. v. McDonald, 453 F. 3r4 953, 962 (7'h Cir. 2006) require an ambiguous statute for the defense to apply. 2. Should the court resolve the split in the circuits whether a public preacher may be ordered to leave a public park and arrested for not leaving, il Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 270-273 (1951), Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67,70 (1953), Price v. City of Fayettville, 22 F. Supp. 274 551 (E.D.N.C. 2014),Gathright v. City of Portland, 439 F.3d 573 (9t Cir. 2006) and Parks v. City of Columbus, 395 F.3d 6438, 654 (6th Cir. 2005) held a street preacher could not be removed, but the 3" Circuit said he may. 3. Was a restriction on speech contentbased where Petitioner's sign stated “if you died tonight, do you know if you are going to heaven or hell?, and Respondents, observing him for 10-15 minutes, told him “take this out of here...,” asked “are you up to one of your other schemes?” said “you have to leave the park,” called him a “con artist,” and said “if you don’t leave I’m going to have to put the cuffs on and “if...he is causing problems ... [or]fear ...it’s my discretion to go outside the park”? 4. Is a posted Ban on All Solicitation in a public park unconstitutional as applied to a preacher who had a collection plate at his feet in a public park? NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) held "solicitation" is...protected by the First Amendment. ... [due to]...improper application.”id, 429, 433. Such a ban in a public park is unconstitutional. ISKCON v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 704 (1992); ACLU of Nevada v. City of Los Vegas, 466 F. 3d 784, 794 (9th Cir. 2006); ISKCON of Potomac, Inc. v. Kennedy, 61 F. 3"4 949 (D.C. Cir. 1995) It was a basis for the arrest, seeking donations with a collection plate. A posted sign stated No Solicitation. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) held The statute banning soliciting...is was...just...effort to persuade...to make a liberties are essential to enlightened opinion. Id, 301-303, 307-311.