SC town goosed in federal lawsuit over claims of harassment regarding birds
A self-proclaimed “goose whisperer” who has battled Surfside Beach for years over the treatment and protection of the birds has filed a federal lawsuit against the town, claiming her rights were violated.
The lawsuit was filed by Maria Pesce on April 16, the same day that the town council heard recommendations by Police Chief William Mickle to amend its current goose ordinance to make it stronger. The ordinance would make it illegal for anyone to feed wildlife or waterfowl, including geese, on both public and private property within the town limits.
The suit names the town, Mickle and two unnamed officers who served cease and desist letters to Pesce after a neighborhood complaint against her was filed.
Pesce, who describes herself as a wildlife advocate and documentarian, has been a public critic of the Town of Surfside Beach’s “refusal to enforce federal and state migratory bird protection laws,” the suit said. Canada geese are migratory birds and are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act which makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt or kill any migratory bird.
Pesce has built a substantial social media following that often includes videos educating the public on the birds and what she claims is residents harassing and harming the geese.
Because of this, Pesce claims she has been harassed by the town, and has received numerous citations from the town for violating its ordinance.
On April 3 and 6, Pesce claims she was lawfully on a public street filming Canada geese and documenting the interaction between the geese and private individuals for the purpose of her public advocacy, the suit says. At no point was Pesce trespassing, obstructing traffic, creating a public nuisance, or violating any provision of the Surfside Beach Code or any state or federal statute, the suit said.
After a resident complained, Surfside Beach Police officers responded and gave Pesce a cease-and-desist letter ordering her to “immediately” cease all photography or videography directed at a Harbor Lights Drive residence and its occupants, the suit said. The letter characterized Pesce’s photography from a public street as “harassment” despite that filming from a public location on a matter of public concern is activity protected by the First Amendment, which prohibits governmental action that violates freedom of speech or the press, the suit said.
Pesce’s filming is protected under freedom of speech, the suit said. Pesce was threatened with arrest if she returned to videography, the suit said.
The suit also accuses Mickle of being the force behind the constitutional violations because of his capacity as the town’s final policymaker, and questions whether the town is violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by its chasing and dispersing Canada geese within town limits.
Pesce is asking for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from arresting or threatening to arrest or otherwise interfering with her right to film matters of public concern from public locations within the town; a declaratory judgment that her filming of the geese from public streets is protected under the First Amendment; and that her presence and walking on the public right-of-way within 3 feet of the roadway is lawful.
Pesce is requesting a jury trial.
