Vol. 19 No. 4 - Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. -
View the Table of Contents for this issue
Brazen Clutter of Public Landscape
By Robert R. Tiernan
April 5 marked a yearŐs anniversary since a Judge in Adams County ordered the acquittal of Rodney Scott for allegedly removing a roadside memorial. The memorial consisted of a Christian cross and related paraphernalia placed by private citizens on the median strip at the intersection of Interstate 70 and East Colfax Avenue. Shortly after Scott allegedly removed the memorial, it was replaced.
In ordering Rodney ScottŐs acquittal, the judge ruled that roadside memorials erected by private citizens are litter, unlawful advertising, and an unauthorized taking of public property for private use. The Judge also ruled that they are a distraction and present a hazard to the motoring public. Therefore, at the conclusion of ScottŐs case, the Colorado Department of Transportation was asked to remove the roadside memorial at issue and similar memorials. CDOT has refused to do so.
A request was also made to the Adams County Sheriff to ticket those who brazenly clutter the public landscape with these objectionable displays. That request was refused. Bob Grant, the Adams County District Attorney who brought the Scott case, has also refused to file charges against these lawbreakers. Instead, he has appealed the JudgeŐs ruling. However, he did not ask for a stay, meaning that the ruling has all the force and effect of law and that CDOT should be removing these memorials and law enforcement should be prosecuting citizens who erect them.
To make matters worse, not only does the memorial Scott was charged with removing remain standing, new memorials have been popping up all over the State. In fact, such a memorial which contains a large figure of an angel was placed on the front lawn of CDOTŐs Region 1 headquarters and it has been allowed to remain there.
Time and time again we hear our public officials say that the law is the law and that we must obey the law, like it or not. ItŐs obvious that the public officials responsible for implementing the ruling in the Rodney Scott case have decided that this principle does not apply to them. TheyŐll simply refuse to apply the law if it doesnŐt happen to suit their fancy.
May 2002 Excerpts