CHAPTER 10. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES IN COLORADO Updated by Matthew J. Rita, Esq.

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 10 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES IN COLORADO Updated by Matthew J. Rita, Esq. INTRODUCTION The United States Constitution is the written framework for our national government. It establishes the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our federal government. The U.S. Constitution also guarantees each American certain basic individual rights and liberties. The first version of the U.S. Constitution, which went into effect in 1789, did not have many provisions that guaranteed individual rights to the citizens of the United States. In 1791, the citizens of the United States ratified an addition to the U.S. Constitution that is now known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Colorado became a state in The state of Colorado needed a constitution that outlined the kind of government Colorado citizens would have. When the early settlers of Colorado were discussing whether or not Colorado would become a state, they also discussed the kind of government the state should have and the individual rights and liberties the citizens of Colorado should have. The Colorado Constitution, which was adopted in 1876, guarantees the citizens of Colorado the same individual rights which the U.S. Constitution guarantees all United States citizens. The Colorado Constitution actually gives citizens even more rights than the U.S. Constitution gives them. The Colorado Constitution has a section known as Article II, the Colorado Bill of Rights, and it reads very much like the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The United States Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in interpreting rights and responsibilities of all citizens under the U.S. Bill of Rights. The Colorado Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in interpreting the rights and responsibilities of all citizens under the Colorado Bill of Rights. The Colorado Supreme Court may interpret the Colorado Bill of Rights differently from the way the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the U.S. Bill of Rights. All United States citizens are entitled to the rights and liberties of the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado Supreme Court may not reduce the rights and liberties granted under the U.S. Constitution and may interpret the Colorado Constitution only in a way that increases those rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. This chapter describes a number of ways in which the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized greater individual rights under the Colorado Constitution than the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized under the U.S. Constitution. 117

2 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS Expectation of Privacy PROBLEM 1 The Colorado Department of Revenue was investigating whether Deb Beat owed taxes to the state of Colorado. The Department of Revenue wanted to look at her bank records. She would not voluntarily turn over her bank records. The Department of Revenue asked a judge for a subpoena without telling Deb Beat what it was doing. A subpoena is a court order that requires people to testify or to give documents to the court or government. The subpoena the Department of Revenue wanted the court to sign would have ordered Deb Beat s bank to turn over her bank records to the Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue wanted to see her bank statements, cancelled checks, and deposit slips. She asked the court not to issue the subpoena because she believed she had a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in her records held by the bank. Was she correct? Although the U.S. Supreme Court had previously decided under the U.S. Constitution that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her bank records, the Colorado Supreme Court decided that under the Colorado Constitution a person does have such an expectation of privacy. The Department of Revenue is required to tell a person what it is doing and is required to follow certain procedures before obtaining the records in order to protect one s constitutional rights. The following problem describes another Colorado Supreme Court case that looked at the expectation of privacy in a criminal case. PROBLEM 2 Can a police department place a beeper in a drum of chemicals that might be used to manufacture illegal drugs, without getting a search warrant from the court? Why or why not? Two men had placed an order for a 100-pound drum of a chemical that could be used to make illegal drugs. A law enforcement agent put a beeper in the drum before it was picked up by the customer. Following the beeper signal, police officers located the garage where the drum was believed to be stored. The officers smelled a strong odor, similar to the type emitted when drugs are being made. The police arrested the two men involved. The defendants said that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the drum of chemicals, and that a warrant was needed to put a beeper in the drum. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed. The Court found that under the U.S. Constitution, the government had done nothing wrong, but concluded that under the Colorado Constitution there is a greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The purchaser of the drum of chemicals had a legitimate expectation of privacy when he purchased the drum. The invasion of privacy by installing a beeper was an invasion that significantly impaired the privacy associated with privately owned goods. 118

3 Another case addressing a person s right of privacy in Colorado involved telephones. PROBLEM 3 Can the phone company record the date, time, and telephone number of the calls from a suspect s telephone without a search warrant? Can that information be used by the District Attorney to prosecute someone? The Colorado Supreme Court noted that under the U.S. Constitution, the answer would be yes ; but under the Colorado Constitution, a person has a legitimate and reasonable expectation that the numbers dialed from a home phone will be free from governmental intrusion. The Court held that because such information is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, officers must obtain a search warrant to procure the installation of a pen register, which records the date, time, and telephone number of the calls from a person s home. The Colorado Constitution differs from the U.S. Constitution in other ways. For example, the Colorado Constitution does not give a person the right to a jury trial in a civil lawsuit. Colorado citizens do have a right to a jury trial, but that right comes not from the Constitution, but from a state law that the legislature passed. The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that a citizen has a right to a jury trial in nearly all civil lawsuits tried in federal courts. The Colorado Constitution has an Equal Rights Amendment that is almost identical to the Equal Rights Amendment that was proposed for the U.S. Constitution but never adopted. In Colorado, state and local governments are prohibited from treating men and women differently. The same prohibition is not included in the U.S. Constitution. Capital Punishment as Cruel and Unusual Punishment The Colorado Supreme Court has been faced with numerous challenges to the death penalty or capital punishment. The following problem illustrates how the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty does not violate the Colorado Constitution. PROBLEM 4 Mr. Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die in Colorado s gas chamber. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared capital punishment not to be cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Davis argued that capital punishment was forbidden under the Colorado Constitution, because it was offensive to the contemporary standards of decency in Colorado. Mr. Davis urged that the Colorado Constitution should be interpreted in light of the morality our society espouses and follows. Is Mr. Davis s argument correct? The Colorado Supreme Court rejected that argument and noted that Mr. Davis did not explain how the Court could determine the contemporary standards of decency without regard to the legislature s judgment. The legislature had already determined that capital punishment was acceptable. The Colorado Supreme Court observed that capital punishment had been a penalty 119

4 for certain crimes throughout the history of the state of Colorado. The Court also noted that in 1966 the voters were asked: Shall capital punishment be abolished? By a nearly 2-1 margin, the voters favored keeping the death penalty. Mr. Davis also contended that capital punishment should be declared illegal because the prosecutor gets to decide for whom to seek the death penalty. The Court responded that in light of the carefully thought-out rules and standards regarding when to seek the death penalty, it does not violate due process to give the prosecutor that discretion. Mr. Davis argued that using deadly gas was cruel and unusual punishment. The Colorado Supreme Court cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision which said that deaths by traditional means of execution, such as hanging, have always involved the possibility of pain and error, and that death by cyanide gas was not different in degree or nature from other traditional modes of execution. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the death penalty as imposed on Mr. Davis. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law that abridges free speech or the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. In these matters, the Colorado Constitution is very similar to the U.S. Constitution. Free speech under both constitutions is not unlimited. If a person complains that he/she is denied free speech, the court decides the issue by balancing the free speech rights of the individual against the government s interests in limiting that person s speech. The courts generally find that laws that punish the content of speech violate constitutional rights. However, laws that restrict the time, place, or manner of speech are not as likely to violate the constitutional right to free speech. In addition, the courts examine whether a law is too broad and prohibits speech that is not generally harmful to the government s interest. The first issue a court must consider when a person complains that his/her free speech rights have been violated is whether that person is the right person to bring the lawsuit. This is called standing. Generally, the courts require that the person bringing a lawsuit must have been injured in some way by the law that is being challenged. The following problem helps to illustrate the concept of standing in the context of free speech. PROBLEM 5 The Student Council at Pikes Peak Community College in Colorado Springs voted to stop funding a school newspaper because the views expressed in the newspaper did not reflect the views of a majority of the students at the school. Does the advisor to the newspaper have standing to bring a lawsuit challenging this decision? The answer is No. While the court permitted the advisor to bring a lawsuit, she was permitted to do so only on behalf of the students, not herself. The teacher s free speech rights had not been denied; only the students rights had been affected. In this case, as in other free speech cases, the right to free speech was considered so important that a third party, the advisor, was permitted to bring the lawsuit on behalf of the students, despite the general rule that only the person whose rights have been denied can bring the lawsuit. 120

5 Free speech rights protect more than just the words people speak. All forms of communication are protected. In Colorado, courts have protected billboards, written statements, picketing and dancing as forms of free speech. The following problem illustrates one way the government can properly limit the freedom of speech. PROBLEM 6 Mr. Williams operated a business in Denver and posted seven signs in the front window of his store. A Denver city ordinance limited the number of signs permitted to three so the city of Denver fined Mr. Williams for having too many signs. Did the Denver city ordinance violate Mr. Williams constitutional right to free speech? Although advertising is a form of protected speech, the right of the public to be free from obnoxious billboards and signs must be balanced against Mr. Williams right to advertise his business. Because Mr. Williams had the right to post three signs, the Denver city ordinance did not take away all of his free speech rights. It also was important to the court that the Denver ordinance did not regulate what the signs said; only their number. Also, only those signs that the public could see from the street were outlawed. The court concluded that the law did not go too far in limiting Mr. Williams free speech rights. The above examples demonstrate that free speech rights are not unlimited. The Colorado Constitution expressly mentions the abuse of the right of free speech if one makes false statements that injure another person s reputation. This is known as defamation. Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not expressly mention defamation, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to protect speech that is defamatory. The balancing of free speech rights in the area of defamation most often arises when newspapers or other public information sources publish stories that may injure people s reputations. The Colorado courts have developed a test to decide when the media are responsible for untruths published about a person. This test is based on the U.S. Supreme Court s interpretation of the First Amendment. The first part of the test determines whether the individual complaining of the untruth is a public figure. If the person is not a public figure, then the court decides whether the media publication concerns an issue that is of public interest. If the issue is one of public interest or if the individual is a public figure, the individual must show the court that the media published the lie knowing that it was a lie, or that the media seriously doubted whether the statement was true. If either of these is shown, then the law says that the media acted with actual malice. The following problem illustrates some of the defamation issues discussed in this section. PROBLEM 7 The Denver Post printed an article about a number of businessmen who were actively involved in land development and land sales to the public. The article suggested that the named businessmen were involved in questionable real estate dealings. Did The Denver Post have to know that it was publishing a lie or seriously doubt that its statements were true in order to be liable to the businessmen for damages due to the defamation? 121

6 Even though the business owners were not public figures, they were land developers who sold land to the public. The Denver Post article was written about a matter that was of public concern. Having reported about a matter of public concern, the newspaper was entitled to the greater free speech protection, which requires the businessmen to show that the newspaper statements were a lie or that the newspaper seriously doubted whether the statements were true at the time they were published. A Colorado Supreme Court case addressed the question of whether or not a shopping mall is an area where free speech rights can be limited. PROBLEM 8 Members of a group called The Pledge of Resistance tried to distribute their pamphlets and tried to solicit protest signatures in the common areas inside the Westminster Mall in Westminster, Colorado. The owners of the mall refused to allow members such access. Did the owners refusal violate the free speech rights of The Pledge of Resistance members? Colorado has a long tradition of ensuring a broader freedom of speech than the U.S. Constitution guarantees. For more than 100 years, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution provides greater protection of free speech than does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court ruled that the Colorado Constitution guarantees free speech not only against state or governmental actions, but also against certain exercises of private power. The Court found that there was enough governmental involvement with the mall to trigger the protection of Colorado s constitutional free speech guarantees. The mall was improved with $2 million of city money; the city operates a police substation in the mall; police officers patrol the mall; and there is an ongoing mutual subsidization between the mall and the city. The Court also found that the mall functions as the equivalent of a downtown business district. The mall permits the Salvation Army to solicit donations, allows dancers and artists to express themselves, and allows religious expression in the mall. The common areas of the mall are public spaces. The mall was trying to prohibit political speech. The Court stated that as long as The Pledge of Resistance was not violent and acted in a responsible way, they could speak freely and solicit signatures in the mall. Free speech issues are sometimes very emotional issues. The following problem describes a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that looked at a law in Minnesota which was designed to punish certain acts, including the burning of a cross. PROBLEM 9 A criminal law in St. Paul, Minnesota prohibited any person from displaying in public a symbol one knows or has reason to know will arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender. R.A.V., a teenager, was charged with violating that law after he allegedly burned a cross on a black family s lawn. Did the law violate R.A.V. s right to free speech? 122

7 The U.S. Supreme Court held that the law violated R.A.V. s right of free speech because it prohibited speech that was normally legal in other contexts. The Court said that the city ordinance amounted to a restriction of fighting words that insult or provoke violence on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender. A person could use abusive and severe words to address other ideas such as political affiliation, union membership or homosexuality and that would not be illegal. If the St. Paul law had prohibited fighting words that are directed at certain groups, that would have been constitutional; but a law such as this one which prohibited fighting words that contain messages based on virulent notions of racial supremacy cannot be constitutional because it results in the majority silencing the speech of the minority based on the content of the speech. The law applied only to racial, religious, or gender-specific symbols such as a burning cross, Nazi swastika or other instrumentality of like import. Burning a cross expresses a message and the law impermissibly attempted to control the message. Freedom of Religion The Colorado Constitution protects the rights of citizens to exercise religious worship without governmental interference, and prevents the state from favoring one religion over another. The provisions in the Colorado Constitution regarding freedom of religion are more specific than the similar provisions in the U.S. Constitution. Absolute freedom of religion is impossible and the courts have recognized that the courts must use a balancing test to ensure that laws that limit the practice of religion are the least restrictive laws possible, while still protecting the interests of society. The following problem illustrates how the Colorado Supreme Court has balanced the rights of an individual to practice religion against the rights of society. PROBLEM 10 Dale was a twelve-year-old boy who had epilepsy. Dale s mother was a member of a religious organization that believed in faith healing and not medical treatment. Dale s mother chose not to give Dale medicine that Dale s doctor had prescribed to protect Dale from injury because of his epilepsy. Dale s health got worse until it was possible Dale might die because of his epilepsy. Should the state have been able to give Dale his epilepsy medicine despite his mother s religious objections? The right of Dale s mother to practice her religion must be balanced against Dale s right as a child not to be exposed to ill health or death. The right to freedom of religion does not include the freedom to expose a child to ill health or death. The Colorado Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state by requiring that the government not give any preference to any particular religion. Bible reading and prayer are generally not permitted in schools as a result of that constitutional provision. The following problem helps explain the separation of church and state. PROBLEM 11 Four residents of the city of Denver did not believe that tax money should be used to pay for a nativity scene on the steps of the courthouse in Denver. Because the nativity scene is a symbol of Christianity, the residents believed the city of Denver s display was supporting Christianity as a state religion. Did the city of Denver s display of the nativity scene violate the separation of church and state? 123

8 When the nativity scene is viewed as a part of the entire holiday display at the Denver courthouse, its primary effect is not to promote the Christian religion. Rather, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the nativity scene is just one of many symbols of Christmas, which is a national holiday. The U.S. Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in a case challenging another city s purchase of a nativity scene. While the Colorado Supreme Court was not required to rule the same way as the U.S. Supreme Court, it based its decision regarding the Denver nativity scene on the earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision. Freedom of Religion -- School Prayer In the area of school prayer, the Colorado Supreme Court has traditionally followed the U.S. Supreme Court. A problem involving graduation ceremonies is helpful in understanding this issue. PROBLEM 12 Can principals invite members of the clergy to offer prayers at school graduations? The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the degree of school involvement in graduation ceremonies makes it clear that prayers bear the imprint of the state. The Constitution says that the state cannot force religious conformity from a student as the price of attending his or her own high school graduation. Taking of Property -- Condemnation The Colorado Constitution prevents property from being taken or damaged for public use without compensation to the private owner. Article II, 15 of the Colorado Constitution allows the state or local government to take private property, but the government must pay the owner the value of the property taken. The Colorado Constitution gives Colorado citizens greater protection than the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it provides that the government must pay not only for property that is taken, but also for property that is damaged by the government. The following problems illustrate the concept of compensation for the taking of private property. PROBLEM 13 Are downstream water users entitled to compensation from the state when a state fish hatchery pollutes creek water, rendering it unfit for private use? Yes. A water right is a property right under the Colorado Constitution. Fish hatcheries are a public use and the hatchery s pollution of water entitles the owners to be compensated for damage to their property rights. 124

9 PROBLEM 14 Mr. Collopy owns a farm near Windsor Lake in Colorado. The state passed a law prohibiting all goose hunting within a four-square-mile area surrounding Windsor Lake. Mr. Collopy s property was included in the four-square-mile area. Up to 7,000 geese reside temporarily on the lake in the winter and forage for food on nearby farms. Before the new law was passed, Mr. Collepy protected his crops by shooting the geese. Under the new law, he has to let the geese eat his crops. Is Mr. Collopy entitled to compensation from the state for his lost ability to protect his crops by shooting the geese? No. Property owners do not have a right to hunt wild animals on their property. Moreover, wild animals are not the responsibility of the state, so the state is not liable for damages caused by the geese. Due Process Rights The Colorado Constitution requires that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This provision, known as the due process clause, is identical to the due process clause in the U.S. Constitution. It is a guarantee against the government s arbitrary exercise of power. Due process in a matter involving the criminal justice system is different than due process in civil cases. Due process in civil matters requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing before liberty or property rights are affected. Due process in criminal matters does not require notice. A person is entitled to notice and a hearing prior to state revocation of his or her driver s license, because a driver s license is a property right protected by due process. Similarly, use of a boot by the city of Denver to immobilize cars that have too many unpaid tickets is also governed by due process. Although Denver does not have to provide a hearing before a boot is put on a car, it must notify the owner of the car that he or she is entitled to a hearing after the boot is put on the car, so that the owner may challenge the immobilization of his or her car. Equal Protection Rights The right to equal protection of the laws is part of the due process clause of the Colorado Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution likewise prohibits a state from denying equal protection to its citizens. The right to equal protection guards against discrimination by the state and federal governments, but not by private organizations. Thus, private clubs and private schools may discriminate on the basis of race or sex. Private property owners may agree as a group not to sell their property to persons of a certain race and may insert such a restriction in their deed of ownership. However, both the Colorado and U.S. Supreme Courts have ruled that courts will not enforce those kinds of restrictions. Thus, property owners who have placed discriminatory restrictions in their deeds cannot enforce those restrictions. 125

10 The U.S. Supreme Court has developed a test for deciding whether a state law unconstitutionally discriminates against people. The Colorado courts use the same test. The first part of the test asks whether the class of people affected is of a particular race or religion. If a state law treats races differently, the court will subject it to a strict examination and will likely conclude that the law is unconstitutional. State laws that either require or permit school districts to segregate children on the basis of race were outlawed under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The following problem involving the Denver public school is an example of how the equal protection clause works. PROBLEM 15 In 1969, many Denver public schools were segregated by race. Even though some neighborhoods were not segregated, school boundaries were defined irregularly in an apparent attempt to keep the schools segregated. Parents of Denver school children brought a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the school district had intentionally segregated the Denver public schools by race. Prior to this lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled only that state laws requiring school segregation by race were unconstitutional. If no state law requires segregation, does a school district s intentional segregation of its schools deny equal protection? It does not matter why the schools are segregated as long as the school district intended to segregate the schools on the basis of race. As a result of this case, the Denver Public Schools were ordered to begin busing children throughout the city to integrate the schools. Colorado courts look closely at laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. This is called strict scrutiny. The fact that the Colorado Constitution has a provision guaranteeing equality between the sexes means that a law that discriminates on the basis of sex is more likely to be found unconstitutional under Colorado law than it would under federal law. Laws that discriminate on some basis other than race, religion, or sex may be subject to a lower standard of judicial review, known as the rational basis test. The rational basis test requires only that the government show some rational connection between its objective in passing the law and the discrimination that results from the law. Laws subject to the rational basis test are almost always found to be constitutional. Courts also use another means to evaluate equal protection. The courts look to whether a law affects fundamental rights, such as the right to vote. Laws that affect fundamental rights are subject to the same close scrutiny as laws that discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Laws that affect non-fundamental rights are examined by the courts under the rational basis test. As with equal protection, the rational basis test for non-fundamental rights requires that the government show some rational connection between its objective in passing the law and the effect on rights resulting from the law. The following problem helps to demonstrate how the rational basis test is applied. 126

11 PROBLEM 16 Several school children challenged Colorado s system of financing public education through local property taxes. They argued that children in wealthy counties received a better education than children in poor counties because the wealthy counties received more property tax money and, thus, had more money to spend on their schools. Was Colorado s education financing system constitutional? Because education is not a fundamental right and discrimination on the basis of wealth is not prohibited, the law need only meet the rational basis test. Thus, the state s system of financing education was not subject to the same close look it would have been if the system of financing education was based, for example, on race. Colorado s education financing system must have only some rational connection to the government purpose in creating the system. The Colorado Supreme Court decided that financing education with local property taxes was rationally related to the objective of maintaining local control over education. Access to Public Information Colorado law requires that all public records be available for inspection at reasonable times. The law requiring public access to government records grants broad rights of access and requires that public officials be responsive to inquiries regarding public records. If a public official denies access to a record, the person seeking access to a record may request a written explanation of the reasons for the denial or may go to court and ask for an order making the records available. Certain records kept by public officials that contain personal information about individuals may be protected from disclosure to the public. Records that are most often withheld from the public are records that include medical and psychological reports, scholastic achievement records, personnel files, and addresses and phone members of children enrolled in public schools. Student Rights and Responsibilities The subject of rights and responsibilities in schools is a concern of all students. The following problem describes a Colorado case that addressed student due process rights. PROBLEM 17 A student who had been drinking at a private party was noticeably under the influence when he arrived at a school dance. He told a school district employee at the dance that two other students had been drinking with him at the private party. Can the school district employee ask the two students to blow in his face? Can those students be suspended or assigned to another school if they were affected at the dance by their off-campus drinking? The Colorado Court of Appeals answered yes to both questions. The requirement that the students blow in the employee s face was found to be a reasonable search under the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions. The search was justified because the employee had a reasonable 127

12 suspicion that the two students had consumed alcohol and the search was reasonably related to the circumstance. The court did send the case back for more proceedings to determine whether the students were affected by their off-campus drinking at the dance and whether the students were aware of what the school district s policies said about off-campus drinking. PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS What do people do if they believe that their constitutional rights have been violated? Several options are available. Often, a letter to certain advocacy groups outlining the alleged violations may help to solve the problem. Another alternative is to file a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Civil Rights Commission handles cases involving discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, physical disability or mental status which have occurred in the context of employment, housing or public accommodations, including restaurants, transportation or hotels. There are strict time limits as to when a complaint must be filed. The Civil Rights Commission will usually determine whether there appears to be some evidence of unlawful discrimination. If discrimination is proved, the Civil Rights Commission may seek relief for the complaining party, attempting to ensure that discrimination does not occur again. Those persons subjected to discrimination by employers that have more than a minimum number of employees may also file a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A person who believes his or her constitutional rights have been violated may consider filing a lawsuit. Certain advocacy groups sometimes bring lawsuits on behalf of persons whose constitutional rights may have been violated. At times, many people who believe they are experiencing the some deprivation of constitutional rights may combine together and file what is known as a class action lawsuit. 128