The night a preacher hit the Street

On a Saturday night in October 2011, Michael Stockwell, a self-proclaimed open-air preacher and the cofounder of Cross Country Evangelism, stationed himself on a sidewalk on Prospect Avenue. Mounted on an amplifier in between Ivy and Cottage Clubs and surrounded by a dozen of his fellow evangelical ministers, Stockwell preached and handed out Gospel tracts for the span of one hour as students wandered past.

“You will stand before God guilty, and on that Day of Judgment the only thing you will get is the wrath of God. If you die with your sins, it will be too late! We are here to warn you!” he told students at one point. Similar messages were repeated throughout the night.

His preaching quickly prompted multiple 911 calls as well as an altercation with the local police. Charges of disorderly conduct were eventually filed against him but later dismissed after seven hearings in the former Borough Municipal Court in March 2012. Princeton Borough and Princeton Township have since consolidated into one municipality.

Stockwell is now countersuing the town of Princeton, as well as nine of its officials, in federal court for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights. According to a copy of the suit, Stockwell had been preaching that night “that drinking and fornication were sinful and that people should repent in order to be saved through the grace of Jesus Christ.”

At the center of the dispute is a local noise ordinance, established in the 1970s, which prohibits the broadcast of loud noises on public streets without the prior approval of the Princeton Council. Part of the ordinance forbids the use of an amplifier after 8 p.m. A permit has to be issued by the municipality if the noise exceeds 55 decibels.

Although Stockwell had no permit that night, the police officers did not use any noise-measuring device, according to multiple records reviewed for this article.

Nevertheless, officers repeatedly told Stockwell and his supporters that he was in violation of the noise ordinance. The evangelists were quick to reply, however, quoting judicial precedents and alleging that the local ordinance was unconstitutional. One of Stockwell’s supporters, Michael Marcavage, even pulled out a binder full of case law to illustrate his point to the officers on hand.

Unmoved by Marcavage’s assertions, police issued a summons against Stockwell at the end of the night for using an amplifier without a permit. However, after a reconsideration of the case, charges of disorderly conduct were filed by one of the responding officers almost three weeks later.

The narrative of the night, reconstructed using a number of public records obtained by The Daily Princetonian under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act, highlights the difficulties police officers face when forced to make quick judgment calls, as well as issues surrounding freedom of speech. These records include police investigation reports, 911 calls, police radio transmissions, a video recording from one of the police officer’s cars, federal court documents and transcripts from the court hearings held at Princeton immediately following the original incident.

Stockwell did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

This is not the first time Stockwell has been involved in this sort of incident. Along with the cofounder of Cross Country Evangelism, pastor Robert Gray, Stockwell has been participating in open-air street preaching for the past two years across America, Europe and Jamaica. According to his organization’s website, the preachers sleep mostly in people’s homes and obtain food through donations.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

They have had previous run-ins with law enforcement as well. Stockwell and Marcavage were involved in an incident over the July 4 weekend three years ago at the University of Pennsylvania, when both were asked to vacate the vicinity of the Masjid al-Jamia mosque after preaching boisterously at practicing Muslims. Marcavage was arrested at the scene.

Marcavage has since accused one of the officers of assault, according to federal court records. In addition, he alleges that the police tampered with evidence by erasing footage of the arrest caught on his video camera.

More recently, in April 2012, Stockwell and Marcavage were also arrested for handing out religious pamphlets in downtown Syracuse, N.Y. The two preachers then filed federal lawsuits against the Syracuse police officers who arrested them, again alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated.

The three cases are being handled by Michael Daily, Jr., a lawyer who specializes in First Amendment rights. Daily is affiliated with The Rutherford Institute, an civil liberties organization providing free legal services.

“The Cottage,” “the Colonial” and “the Charter”

The Borough police received the first of many phone calls about a disturbance on Prospect Avenue at 11:03 p.m. that night, according to testimony presented by officer Luis Navas, one of the on-duty responders at the time, at one of Stockwell’s hearings. The caller reported an unidentified male standing on a box and yelling into a bullhorn. Both items were later correctly identified as an amplifier and a microphone, respectively.

One of the first callers was a member of the Class of 2012, who first heard the yelling as she left Charter Club after watching a movie with other eating club members. As she walked down Prospect Avenue toward Washington Road, she noticed the crowd surrounding Stockwell, got out her cell phone and dialed Public Safety. Public Safety directed her call to the Borough police.

“There is one guy standing on, well, a box, screaming about something,” the student said, according to a recording of the 911 call. By then, the Borough police had already received multiple reports from unidentified callers about Stockwell’s preaching.

As the night wore on, the callers got progressively more agitated, Robert Voorhees, the dispatcher on call that night, told the Princeton court.

“I have to complain; this guy sucks; he’s on Prospect Street,” one of the callers said. “Tell him to shut up; we’ve had enough of him. He sucks.”

It is unclear from the records exactly where on Prospect Avenue Stockwell stood. The member of the Class of 2012 said in her testimony that she saw him outside of Cottage, while other callers positioned him outside of Ivy and Colonial.

This detail elicited bewilderment in Stockwell’s later municipal court hearing. The prosecution and the defense, unfamiliar with the eating club system, expressed confusion as to where “the Colonial” was located in relation to “the Cottage.” The misunderstanding prompted the student, who was asked to participate as a witness, to request a map of Prospect Avenue for the attorneys to consult.

Not a silent night

At the time of the incident, Navas was monitoring the neighborhood and heard the commotion from his vehicle, stationed about 100 feet away.

According to video footage from Navas’ patrol car, he arrived with fellow officer Christopher Donnelly at around 11:17 p.m. that night, almost 15 minutes after the student’s call.

Perplexed as to how to approach the situation, Navas radioed his supervisor Sergeant Carol Raymond.

“This man is standing on a soap box screaming through a megaphone,” Navas said to Raymond. It was later clarified that Stockwell was actually standing on an amplifier and preaching through a microphone. Previous 911 callers also inaccurately portrayed Stockwell as standing on a stack of milk crates.

Navas approached Marcavage, one of the Stockwell’s fellow evangelists, and asked to see his permit to use an amplifier.

Earlier that day, Stockwell's evangelical group had called the Borough Police Department, requesting a permit to use an amplifier during his preaching that night, according to court transcripts. At the time, Raymond had picked up the call and replied that she did not have the authority to issue such permits. She told them to direct their call to the Borough clerk or administrator for their request.

However, as Stockwell continued to shout his religious message, Marcavage told Officer Navas that the noise ordinance was unconstitutional and that the students didn’t have to listen to Stockwell’s message if they found it offensive.

“You have put an outright ban on our speech,” Marcavage told him. “Would you shut down that party if I made a phone call to shut it down? This is a public street.”

He also pulled out a binder full of case law and started walking Navas through previous Supreme Court hearings on freedom of speech.

Stockwell continued to use the microphone until about 11:47 p.m., although Marcavage had turned the volume down about 10 minutes earlier. While Marcavage handled the discussion throughout the night, Stockwell kept on preaching.

“I don’t mean to butt in, but he’s saying he is turning it down for now, but later when the clubs are going, he wants to be able to turn it louder to be effective,” one of the other preachers told the police.

Music coming from the nearby eating clubs can be heard in the video footage after midnight.

Navas then contacted his supervisor once again for assistance, and Raymond instructed him to tell Stockwell that he needed a permit for the noise.

“I'm trying to tell him that, and again he's talking about the Constitution,” Navas told Raymond through this police radio. “I think you want to talk to him.”

When Marcavage finally turned off the microphone, Stockwell’s preaching continued, this time using his voice alone.

Some students covered their ears and crossed over to the other side of the street to avoid Stockwell. Other students began arguing back loudly at Stockwell’s religious message.

“Have you read the Bible? Have you read it? Nobody reads Scripture!” Stockwell replied to the arguing students. “What’s a Christian? What do you mean by 'Christian'?”

Navas was then informed that the police department had received five more calls relating to Stockwell’s preaching.

Despite the insistent complaints, Navas initially said that he was not going to issue Stockwell a ticket since he had complied with the Borough’s noise ordinance by turning off the microphone.

“The order is unconstitutional; you are not even measuring the volume level,” another preacher said.

“I don’t care; you don’t have a permit to be here,” Raymond said, who had just arrived on the scene slightly past 11:50 p.m.

Raymond noted at the court hearings that some of the students were becoming alarmed, stating that some of the females in particular were staying as far away from Stockwell as possible.

Although Stockwell had turned off the amplifier, he was “shouting at the top of his lungs,” according to Raymond.

“You’re pushing your opinion on someone without just letting them listen,” Raymond shouted at the still-preaching Stockwell that night. “Just talk to them like you’re talking to me.”

Marcavage responded that their message needed to be heard in order to be effective. The preachers also expressed confusion as to what behavior was and was not permitted.

Meanwhile, Raymond, Navas and Donnelly debated whether or not to charge Stockwell.

A little after midnight, after much discussion, Raymond ordered Navas to issue a summons against Stockwell for his previous violation of the noise ordinance. The group of preachers left Prospect Avenue shortly after.

A preacher’s day in court and a countersuit

Almost three weeks later, on Oct. 26, 2011, Navas dismissed the noise ordinance summons and mailed Stockwell a charge of disorderly conduct for allegedly “engaging in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior.” At around the same time, Navas was completing his investigation report into the incident.

Daily, the lawyer representing Stockwell, explained that the escalation in charges was “more irksome than anything.” Daily said he had come to expect this type of action from law enforcement officials, who are often granted leeway in issuing charges at the scene for the purposes of mollifying the situation.

Daily filed a complaint with the town, stating that this change in offense was issued and authorized by Navas’ superiors in the Police Department and by executive members of the Public Safety Committee. The town denied this allegation.

However, in his court testimony on March 5, 2012, Navas stated that he was advised by his commanding officers to withdraw the noise ordinance charge in favor of the disorderly conduct statute.

Stockwell appeared in municipal court on seven separate occasions to defend himself. Once the prosecution rested, Daily moved for a motion to dismiss. The court granted this motion in April 2012.

Since being granted the motion to dismiss, Stockwell has sued nine former Borough officials for violating his rights to freedom of speech and religion. Stockwell hopes to gain compensation for the “emotional distress” he experienced that night. When asked what type of emotional distress Stockwell endured, Daily replied that it was “of the garden variety.”

The town has denied Stockwell’s allegations of emotional distress and has affirmed the constitutionality of the noise ordinance for which Stockwell was originally charged that night.

Daily maintains that Stockwell was on a public street and that the eating clubs were using similar amplification devices to play music. However, the member of the Class of 2012 stated in her testimony that the noises generated by the eating clubs never reached Stockwell’s volume.

“People don’t like to receive the Christian message,” Daily said. “It’s not very popular, and that’s what this is really all about.”

In the suit, Daily argued that the revised charge was issued and authorized by Navas’ superiors in the Police Department and by executive members of the Public Safety Committee. The town denied this allegation in its official response.

Daily also disagreed with the intentions of the 911 callers.

“If you disagree with what someone is saying, rather than calling the police, you go over to Stockwell and tell him he’s full of crap,” Daily said. “That’s the way the First Amendment envisioned things would go.”

According to the student’s testimony, she said that she did not disagree with Stockwell’s message and that she was only complaining about the noise he was making.

Daily asserted that the student’s statement about being bothered by the volume of Stockwell’s preaching was a “pretext” and noted that if the noise had really offended the student, she could have taken a more circuitous route.

“Why walk right past him if the noise was really oppressive and really bothering you?” Daily asked rhetorically.

Nevertheless, Daily said that the outcome of the case is “virtually impossible to predict” and that it will depend largely upon a jury’s determination.

The federal court trial began on Tuesday, April 30 with a discovery hearing.

To see the police files regarding Stockwell's case including the investigation report, dispatch records and court summons, click here

To see the transcripts of Stockwell's hearings at the Princeton Municipal Court, click here

To see the federal court lawsuit files filed by Stockwell against the town of Princeton, click here