Evangelists may sue University after Penn Police arrest

Two Christian evangelists may sue the University for what they believe was a suppression of their First Amendment rights.

Recent court documents confirm Michael Marcavage — director of evangelistic organization Repent America — and evangelist Kenneth Fleck were declared not guilty after being arrested by Penn Police on July 3 outside the Masjid Al-Jamia mosque, at 4228 Walnut St.

The trial, which took place Nov. 12, cleared the evangelists of disorderly conduct and obstruction of a highway charges. Seven days later, Attorney C. Scott Shields sent a letter to Penn President Amy Gutmann on their behalf, demanding the University either agree to certain actions or face a lawsuit.

According to Marcavage, he and Fleck were preaching on the sidewalk outside the mosque when Penn Police arrested them. Prosecuting Assistant District Attorney Joseph McCool said a security guard called police after seeing tensions between mosque attendants and the evangelists escalate.

The letter, which Marcavage quoted in an e-mail but did not release in full, reads that he and Fleck seek “the institution of a policy for annual Police Department training to protect the rights of individuals to engage in free speech and the free exercise of religion on the public streets and sidewalks within the jurisdiction of the University Police Department,” among other things.

“The University has received the letter, and it is currently under review,” University spokeswoman Lori Doyle said, declining any further comment.

Marcavage said he expects a response “probably by the beginning of December,” but other factors, such as the University possibly asking for more time, could change that. “We expect an answer in a reasonable amount of time,” he said. “We want to resolve this without a public spectacle, but we can’t let this go unanswered.”

Marcavage explained that much of the reasoning behind sending the letter stemmed from what they described as “concerning” behavior from Penn Police.

According to him, the arresting officer in the case contradicted herself during the trial by claiming the defendants were two feet from the mosque’s door, as opposed to the 10 feet she claimed during the initial police investigation.

Marcavage also claimed police erased video evidence of the incident that would have favored his case. “The video footage would have shown everything,” he said. “The mosque’s surveillance camera showed me with a small camera recording … then [an officer] deleted the video and it cuts to a time stamp of when we were already in police custody.”

But according to McCool, that is merely Marcavage’s opinion. “The fact is the surveillance cameras taped the incident and there’s no evidence” of the preachers’ claim, McCool said. “It seems they only filmed for a short amount of time.”

Although the defense claimed “Marcavage got a videotape to protect himself,” McCool said, “he really only wanted to videotape the police’s reaction.”

McCool said he believed the court decision was “a very close call,” and at the end, “the judge didn’t find disorderly conduct based on how the statute is written.” In regards to the obstruction of highway charge, McCool said he withdrew the charge because it is usually applied in prostitution cases.

“I think Penn Police absolutely understands and respects First Amendment rights,” he added. He explained that controversial scenarios like the preachers’ protest outside the mosque can lead to “a public safety issue.”

Police “tried to calm everyone down,” McCool said. “What else would we expect from police who protect us?”

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.