A city official allegedly ordered police to “find” and tow a man’s truck after he campaigned against the mayor, and a federal appeals court just said his free speech lawsuit can move forward.
Story Snapshot
- The Sixth Circuit revived William Fambrough’s First Amendment retaliation claims against former East Cleveland Mayor Brandon King and his chief of staff, Michael Smedley.
- Court records reportedly show Smedley contacted Police Chief Scott Gardner, who then emailed officers: “Please, find this vehicle and tow it.”
- Police towed the truck in August 2021, weeks before a primary election, after Fambrough used it to support Mayor King’s opponent, Juanita Gowdy.
- Fambrough reportedly held a permit signed by the police chief to use the truck for political messages, and had done so for years without trouble.
- The court tossed out his Fourth Amendment claim and gave Chief Gardner immunity, so the win is partial, not total.
A Truck, A Campaign, And A Tow Order
William Fambrough used a sound truck to back Juanita Gowdy against incumbent Mayor Brandon King in East Cleveland, Ohio, in 2021. He had broadcast political messages from the vehicle for years. Weeks before the primary, police found the truck parked outside his home, cited it for parking and noise, and towed it away.
Fambrough reportedly had a permit signed by the police chief himself, allowing him to broadcast campaign messages from the truck. He had used it in prior elections without any citation or warning. Police had once simply told him he needed a permit instead of punishing him. That history makes the sudden crackdown look less like routine enforcement.
An Email That Tells The Story
Court records reportedly show chief of staff Michael Smedley reached out to Police Chief Scott Gardner about Fambrough’s truck. Gardner then sent officers a department-wide email reading: “Please, find this vehicle and tow it.” Officers located the truck outside Fambrough’s home and towed it soon after.
The timing matters. City officials had a decades-old ordinance restricting where such trucks could park, but reports say it was rarely, if ever, enforced before Fambrough backed the mayor’s opponent. That pattern raises a basic question any conservative understands: do rules apply equally to everyone, or only to people who speak out against those in power?
Court Pushes Back On The City’s Excuses
A federal district court first sided with the city, saying Fambrough failed to connect the ordinance enforcement to his political speech. The Sixth Circuit disagreed in part. The appeals court said the lower court used the wrong legal standard and sent the retaliation claims against King and Smedley back for further proceedings.
The appeals court also pushed back on the city’s noise justification. Judges reportedly wrote that “mere use of a sound truck doesn’t violate the Noise Ordinance,” since the rule only applies when sound actually disturbs others at a certain volume. That distinction matters because it means simply owning or parking a campaign truck cannot, by itself, justify a tow.
Where The Case Falls Short
The ruling is not a full victory for Fambrough. The Sixth Circuit rejected his Fourth Amendment claim, finding the impoundment served a legitimate “community-caretaking” purpose under standardized rules. His separate claim of selective enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment was forfeited on appeal, meaning judges never ruled on its merits.
Chief Gardner also walked away with qualified immunity. The court found no clearly established law saying an officer who simply follows another official’s order violates someone’s rights, even if that official had a retaliatory motive. That leaves Fambrough’s strongest claims aimed only at King and Smedley, not the chief who issued the tow order.
Why This Case Should Worry Every Citizen
This case lands at the center of a long-running legal fight. Courts have struck down sound-truck permit rules that let police chiefs use unchecked discretion to silence speech, while also allowing reasonable limits on noise. The real question in East Cleveland is whether officials used ordinary rules as a weapon against a political opponent’s supporter.
Fambrough’s lawsuit, backed by the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, will now continue in lower courts, where more records on enforcement history and officials’ motives could surface. For now, the appellate ruling confirms one thing clearly: a sitting mayor’s staff allegedly used police power against a private citizen simply because he supported the mayor’s opponent. That should trouble anyone who values the First Amendment, regardless of party.
Local elections often draw the least scrutiny, yet this case shows how officials can abuse everyday ordinances to punish dissent. Citizens who exercise their right to support a candidate should not have to worry about city hall sending police after their property. The courts will now decide whether East Cleveland’s leaders crossed that line.
Sources:
reason.com, hoodline.com, potluckpundits.com, verdict.news
