Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMMOII9TEALTEOF I|ASSACHUSETTS
SUPERIOR COURT
NO.99-1896-8
SIIFFOLK, ee.
STEPtsAII A. IAIIPEEAR
& anotherl
v9.
COMMOI{IIEAIITE OF I,IA.SSACEUSETTS
MmrcnNrouu or pgclstou
INTRODUCTION
- The ptaintiffs,
tattoos,
receive
a tattoo
artist
seek a declaration
to
the Massachusetts
that
ry
/o-/dz'
?h.Err?.-/,
facially
Untied
States
Declaration
parties'
specified
is
of
because it
and article
Constitution
The matter
Rights.
cross-motions
below.
motion
I John R. Parkinson.
is
Amendment to
First
16 of
of
of
the
defendant
the
For the
court. on the
reasons
Stephan A.
the plaintiff
is
the
the Massachusetts
now before
summary judqrnent-
for
the motion
the
violates
DENIED.
Lanphear
E
- f /. F t: ,
/L&'r
19
/y'-4''d
,l.J*.
/9
/*'
BACKGROT'ITD
are
The facts
Stephan A'
The plaintiff,
He is
Massachusefts.
york
is
practice
l-icensed
as a tattooist
works.
The plaintiff,
where he currently
(parkinson),
to
a resident
of
from Lanphear
Massachusetts
being
without
receive
tattoos
state.
G.L'
c'
not
are
(Lanphear),
Lanphear
who wishes
artist
tattoo
winning
and they
complicated
not
is
his
in
dispute.
an awardbusiness
in
City
of
by the
New
John R. Parkinson
who desires
to
reguired
to
leave
the
states:
as a qualified
Whoever-, not being registered
marks the body of any person by means
physician
be punished by a fine of not more
shall
of- tattooi.rg,
for not
or by imprisonment
than three hundred dollars
more than one Year' or bothcontend
The plaintiffs
currently
practices
Massachusetts
except
is
by a health
tattooing
only
one of
care
that
no Massachusetts
as an art
five
states
professi-onal ' I
physician
is
the
only
tattooing
statute
in
not
governing
Massachusetts
charges
any criminal
facing
Lanphear is
The plaintiff
tattooing.
statute.
this
viol-ating
for
DISCUSSION
for
In order
an actual
Even if
plaintiff
must demonstrate
Indep.
controversy
that
and Brokers,
Ins,--Aqents
for
must exist
between the
v.
legal
requisiie
of
Assoc'
Massachusetts
Inc.
particular
the
controversy,
he has the
resolution.
its
secure
to
a petition
entertain
an actual
is
there
parties.
standing
to
court
this
retief,
declaratory
Judgment
Declaratory
for
Standard
1.
commissioner
Ins.,
of
3?-?
Mass.2go,2g2(:-977)(internafcitationomitted).The
the
that
contend
plaintiffs
act
of
tatLoos
and wearing
creating
areformsofexpressionprotectedbytheFirstAmendmenttothe
united
Declaration
protected
transcendent
exercising
those
aIl
that
prosecution
"Because of
P.ights.
of
constitutionally
required
and article
constitution
states
to
value
their
alL
to
rights
expression,
subject
their
test
the
to
Court
Ithe
For free
soclety,
and not
has]
merely
loser"'
12 (1990), as quoted in
risk
-
expression
to
of
not
regulation
overbroad
be the
nature
sensitive
rights'
might
the Massachusetts
16 0f
of
those
Osborne v'
Benefit
v'
Cambridqe,424Mass.918,g2I(1997)'Declaratoryreliefis
appropriateherebecause.'thematterinvolves.thepossible
ohio'
for
the
a criminal
of
enforcement
of
Prevention
408 (1981),
quoting
to Animals,
Crueltv
Mobil
Corp. v.
Oil
Massachusetts
Soc'\
401,
Knox v.
statute."'
361 Mass'
Gen.'
Attorney
prosecution
is
question,
in
statute
protected
by the
standing
requisite
does not
however,
that
he performs
if
he desi.res
receive
other
tattoos
to
states
have standing,
in
contention
to
request
practice
in
Massachusetts
the
receipt
sense that
not
threaten
and there
is
upon by the
pl-aintif
of
in
a person
this
the act
display
of
that
tattoos.
case.
in
tc
to
ir
question,
but
of
his
are
the
neither
The statute
criminal
with
does not
traveJ
Bonan v'
tattooing,
any rights
He therefore
to
be significantly
The statute
of
to
the matters
in
point'
contested
it. alleged
a plaintiff
for
will
such as Parkinson
no allegation
statute.
the
Parkinson,
opportunity
interest
rights
his
320 (1986) .
nor the
tattoos
of
the
be required
order
c.
fn
is
nor
artist,
and not
tattoos.
receive
has the
judgment.
what he wants is
do so.
he contends
that
He therefore
as a tattoo
by the
prohibited
conduct
a dec]aratory
to
M a. ,s s . 3 1 5 ,
9@
8 @
@ @ @ @ @3@
G.L.
involves
criminal'
is
which
trade,
his
Amendment.
First
with
threatened
and which
by a resolution
affected
is
Lanphear
case,
this
does
prosecutior
infringed
have standing
as a
Is Tattooing
funendment?
2.
The United
States
many forms
of
"Constitution
supra at
Partv
(1977 );
v.
because
..the person
express
an idea,"
(1958).
No articulabte
constitutional
devoid
of
ideas'
take
v.
swastikas.
EelgClle,
of
lgitec!--.1!$gg
with
of
conduct
O'Brien,
Hurfev'
communitv
or refusj-ng to
319 U.S.
624,
CaLiforr:ia,
al-so
schad
or otherwi-se.
speech simply
intends
391 U'S'
message is
suDra at
entertainment
43-44
66 (1981) '
quality
or particularized
protection.
but
v.
43,
the humanbody is
nude, dancing,
j-n the
parades'
include:
Educ. v.
on the
engaging
The
S - I . g - b . i - C4. t3 2 U - S -
v.
are
and Bisexual-
Gav, Lesbian
Exhibition
whether
expression,
Conduct
of
conducL that
Amendment
speech.
and displaying
Tinker
a flag,
protected
First
Sch. Dist.,
the
conduct
America
of
an armband.
wearing
of
First
symbolic
569; marching
Socialist
National
or
Irish-American
protected
constitutionally
salute
v.
Hurley
the
be deemed symbolic
Group of
Hurlev,
to
of
courts
of
forms
including
beyond written
fooks
expression".
protections
the
expression
expressive
sufficiently
and the
Supreme Court
by the
value
to
thereby
361,
316
a condition
569' *[E]xpression
may
' be
protected
because
is
entertaining
between the
line
of
First
of
programs,
supra
Schad,
works.
at
drawings,
encompasses paintings,
Kapl-an v.
413 U.s.
California,
also
Amendment protection
First
55.
engravings,
forms
alL
and dramatic
such as musical
entertainment,
and live
to
and teLevisi-on
radio
pictures,
(1948)'
507,510
extends
Amendment protection
such as motion
entertainmenL,
Siqma Chi
of
and the
informing
IOTA XI Chaoter
elusive-"'
too
v.
Fraternitv
rIt]he
works'
and printed
It
appears
beyondargumentthatthedrawnimageisprotected,whetheron
paper,metal.canvas'orsomeotherinanimatemedium.Theissue
is
whether
to
entitled
First
a tattoo'
is
speech
symbolic
Amendment protection'
Tattooingisanancientartformwhichhasbeenpracticedin
virtualJ-y
every
culture
Libya,
man found
Asia,
frozen
for
in
of
thousands
al]
parts
of
and perfectly
preserved
Tattooed
years'a
the
world
A five
in
including
thousand
year
old
between
the mountains
ItalyandAuStriaboresevera].tattoos.Incontemporarytlmes
tattooing
became the
domain of
a more limited
segment of
society
Iast
steadily
cultural-
decades the
several
and is
evolved
status
Hiding
Over the
tattooing
of
by a broader
now accepted
society.
activity.
viewed as an anti-social
has
segment of
(University
Chicago
of
Press, L99t) .
Today,
industry
in
purchased
Persons
form
of
to
museum, gallery,
United
States.
tattooing
of
tattoos
tattoo
City
art
Itattoos]
is
art
as a weII-established
has been described
in
entitled
Drawings
and cultural
for
"Pierced
Tattoos".
Hearts
"Much of
cannot be articulated
every artwork
to
its
creaLor
the
form.
political
subject
of
tl
journa]-s'
Professional
reference
other
shows across
art
books recognize
i-mportanr
The artistic
for
an exhibition
Drawing center
States.
and to
is
artwork
most commonly
United
institution
n.4.
infra
the
retaif
be the
to
beliefs,
related
and educational
see, e .9.,
growing
commitment io
religious
Tattoo
magazines
newspapers,
work in
demonstrate
to
fastest
believed
art
original
tattoos
sixth
and is
institutions,
to
the
countrys
the
obtai.n
persons,
is
tattooing
in
New York
a Century
of
symbolism or meaning of
and is
private
or collector.
to
the wearer,
By willing
it
aI
to
5T h e s i n g l e
growing demographic group seeking tattc
fastest
services is middle class suburban women. Hoag Lewis, a 1998
"The Changing Cultural, Status of Tattoo Art"
synopsis entitled'
- com/history. html ) .
( h t t p : / w w w .t a t t o o a r t i s t
beplacedonthebodythetattoocollectorlitera}lybecomesone
withtheart.,,Themediumonwhichthedrawnimageappearsshould
"speech";
whether somethlng is
when determining
not be relevant
the
symbolic
is
itself
tattoo
of
speech deserving
Amendment
First
prote'ction.'
Law c .
General
tattooing.
Therefore,
"the
process
actual
tattoo
conveyed by the
of
elements
of
issue
cruciaf
the
tattooing,
itself,
is
to
fal-l
communication
the
only
265, S 34 prohibits
in
this
case is
whether
image
as opposed to
the
'sufficiently
imbued with
the
scope of
the
within
of
act
actual
First
Amendmeat.---"'Yurkewv'Sinclair'495F'Supp'7248'
1,253 (D. Minn.
images and is
None of
jurisdictions
whether
the
People v.
hefd,
in
creative
act
of
the
in
act
the
from the
of
display
actual
the
tattooed
sPeech'
not
from other
tattooing
O'Sullivan,
without
that
distinguishable
is
tattooing6
Amendment analysis,
First
of
context
1980).
the
have addressed
is
"speech"
is
question
persuasive'
any discussion
whatsoever'
that
of
In
the court
"we do not
deem
speech or
[tattooing]
cited
turn
conclusion
by Yurkew as the
"[w]herever
that
between protected
exists
the
Yurkew,
line.,,
of
because
Yurkew j-ntends
to
process
does not
the
Another
Licensinq
only
Id.
with
tattooing
is
v.
issue
this
the
"amorphous line"
Yurkew made
that
"merely
tattooing
through'the
Q1BI!4.
as speech
tattoos
protected
by the
375'
at
391 U'S'
its
court
the
even symbolic
simply
tattooing
that
in
and held
a level
side
Commonwealth' Medical
by the
speech nor
neither
analysis,
yurkew stating
1254, citing
at
and Yurkew in
o, sullivan
further
Ind.
Bd. of
to
conduct
of
First
for
unprotected
The court
an idea
express
submitted
case
presented
the
raise
on the
display
as conduct,
tattoos
creation
Amendment."
1253-
at
demarcation
of
conduct
falls
between the
and the
First
amorphous line
E!p!g
distinction
bright-Iine
the
tattooing
Amendment purposes
of
authoritative
its
for
supPort
sole
and unprotected
case was in
This
speech."
even symbolic
falls
agreed with
on the
between protected
that
"all-
process
courts
of
liithout
speech."
the
language rn
side
unprotected
of
conduct'
and unprotected
rd.
Finally,
in
Stephenson v.
s First
tattoo
is
the court
more than
in
the
a footnote
observation
'self-expression,'
Dist''
the
that
unlike
of
forms
other
or
expression
was protected,
tattoo
rather
"self-expression"
referenced
plaintiff's
the
There
process.
tattooing
between
distinction
the
for
basis
no rational
appea,rs to be
the
than
the
artistic
in
the
case'
that
of
display
the
whether
with
was concerned
court
In
4.
130? n.
-I-d=at
amendment protections."
first
receive
which
conduct
expression.
IftheactoftattooingisdistinguishableinFirst
Amendment analysis
should
distinction
act
painting
of
paintings,
the
Star
true
of
and Tribune--ep-
575,582-583
the
burdens
more.
It
fol-Iows
then
forms of
expression:
then
a tax
the
Amendment.
regulation
right
to
the
see Minneapofis
460 U'S'
Revenue'
on the purchase of
implicate
has
press
used by the
Comm'r of
the press,
that
from
product.
First
the
of
display
from the
would seem to
process
printing
the
same
tattoos,
newspaPers distinguishable
Minnesota
If
freedom of
of
by the
v.
(1983).
other
for
printed
the
a tax
that
of
display
be dist.inguished
protected
rights
burdens
hold
printing
and the
however,
the
should
dissemination
held,
from
of
ink
and paper
actuaf
the
Amendment even
First
disseminate
protected
speechwouldbeworthlessiftherighttocreatethespeechin
the
first
a tattoo
place
is
were not
intrinsically
protected'
equally
part
of
art.
1 n
The act
the expressive
of
content
creating
of
the
the
the
process
tattooing
and is
of
by the
protected
Constitution
16
and article
of
Any regulation
Rights.?
constitutional
comply with
therefore.
must,
from the
inseparable
expression
States
United
is
tattooing
Declaration
Massachusetts
the
of
act
itself
tattoo
Amendment to
First
of
the
of
display
the
that
conclude
requirements.
More
Does G.L. c. 265, S 34, Burden Substantially
the -commonweal.th's
speech than rs Necessary to Further
fnterests?
Legitinate
3.
now to
turn
265, S 34,
to
regard
without
if
governmental
the
than
is
.it
essential
to
the
Broadcastjnq-vs!e$---J."ing
QLB5!en,
suPra
at
and if
of
that
c-
[A]
will
be
substantial
the
Amendment freedoms is
furtherance
expresslon]
or
expression;
First
on alleged
protected
G.L.
tattooing
tattoo'
governmental- interest
the
free
agree that
the
form of
prohibitinq
statute
prohibits
it
is,
an important
if
of
or
Iof
furthers
interest;
suppression
restriction
content
the
regulation
content-neutralsustained
that
content-neutral;
is
the
whether
The parties
is_ unconstitutional.
tattooing
to
of
an analysis
is
unrel-ated
incidental
no greater
interest."'
Turner.
377
7A violation
of the First Amendment to the United SaLes
16 of
of articfe
constitutesr
Constitution
P - . ES , a v i o l a t i o n
v
'
S
c
h
o
ol
H
o
s
f
o
r
d
R
i
g
h
t
s
'
o
f
D
e
c
f
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
the Massachusetts
(1996) '
5
1
1
'
2
n
'
7
0
8
,
M
a
s
s
.
4
2
I
o
f
S
a
n
d
w
i
c
h
,
Committee
11
three
operation
of
spreading
disease
adverse
tattooing
to
agrees
The plaintiff
the
tattooing,
and the
to
question,
therefore,
is
is
necessary
interests."
Turner
substantially
legitimate
government's
at
sgra
statute
the
whether
'
and
The remaining
"burdens
to
the
further
system'
Broadcastinq
Rock Aoainst
Ward v.
662, quoting
tattoos
important
expression'
free
of
of
possibility
are
interests
these
that
of
receiving
by people
inks
suppression
unrelated
Inc.,
the
tattoo
sanitary
possibility
establishments,
through
reactions
general
the
it.s citizens:
of
health
the
re]_ated to
interests
ltovernmental
Racism,
491 U.s.
through
as a concern
understood
due to
tattooing
of
djsease'
by the
expressed
two concerns
The first
generalty
Sanjtation
a.
commonwealth can be
will
disease
that
the
and/or
conditions
unsanitary
be spread
tattooingprocess.overtheyears,therehavebeenindividual
cases or outbreaks
associated
with
of
diseases
viral
as well
tattooing,
as staphy.lococcus,
syphilis,
that
transmission
The primary
of
hePatitis
as bacterial-
could
tattooing
of
concern
HIV transmission
B and C'
L2
infections
spread HIV'
B and C
Although
and tuberculosis'
such as hepat'itis
there
through
documented
such
there
have
such as in
in
infection
Commonwealth,
in
are
individuals,
people
who are
or
the
of
acceptablt
which has
b'
regulated
not
is
regulated
not
to
reduc&
tat.tooing,
and phlebotomists,
risk
the
body piercing,
that
note
inherent
those
is
settings
ban is
with
that
below,
as described
to
to
a complete
and that
broken,
however,
He contends,
and dental
is
can be minimized
regulation,
instructive
to
simila-r
process.
barrier
skin
procedures.
precautions,
medical
is
It
levels.
risks
through
universal
use of
the
wherever
such as
diseases
tattooing
the
transmission
disease
justified.
not
therefore
the
of
levels
acceptable
present
and medical
dental
risk
the
that
is
risk
this
Indeed,
for
possible
is
through
be transmitted
to
hepatitis
it
that
concedes
Lanphear
engaged to
by thr
Jicensed
Corunonwealth.
precautions
Universal
processes
as multiple
The use of
diseases.
of
disposal
to
states
gloves
risk
of
the
and the
spreading
is
and other
infection.
to
contaminated
where tattooing
sterilizatiOn
of
barriers
potentially
the
minimize
invol-ve the
See, e.g.,
use of
and/or
sterilization
for
equipment,
the
example,
to
hel-
In
pathogens.
law generally
precautions
universal
infectious
spread of
blood-borne
regulated,
equipment and
requires
reduce the
risk
1103.02(1995).Regulatingtheqeneralsanitaryconditionof
tattooing
establishments
would also
-LJ
reduce the
risk
of
i-nfection
are
establishments
barber
the
risks
in
nature
tattooing
from unsanitary
with
associated
those
to
the
procedures'
non-invasive
than
infection
of
risk
higher
has a
and therefore
procedure
an invasive
is
tattooing
Although
'
TheCommonwealthagreesthatunregulatedtattooingposes
greater
G.L.
risks
health
public
has been in
265, S 34,
weapon to
an effective
Commonwealth; there
trede,
tattooing
is
unregulated
evidence
of
without
Although
tattooinq'
been
has not
it
decades'
for
effect
prevent
operating
regulated
than
in
tattooing
the
illegal
a flourishing
anc
whatsoever
any regulation
incidentsofenforcementarefewandfarbetween.sThecurrent
has promoted
ban on tattooing
an underground
wit
industry
tattoo
nocontrolswhich,inturn,hascreatedincreasedhealthriskst
tattoos
of
recipients
in Massachusetts'
and tattoo
Tattooing
artists
is
in
legal
Ne
have established
businessesneartheMassachusettsborderinanapparenteffortt
attract
from the
clients
Commonwealth'
TheCommonwealth,sconcernsforthewelfareofitscitizeni
are
important
sufficiently
required
and substantial'
addressed
use of
through
universaf
However' these
Iicensing
precautions'
may be
and regulation'
and sanitary
o.f attempted
I I n f a c t , only one incident
a
t
t
e
n
t
t
on'
c
o
u
r
t
'
s
t
h
e
been brought to
L4
concerns
the
tattooing
enforcement
has
does not
the
just
,over the
Massachusetts
may not
infection
Thus,
tattooing
G.L.
c.
than
that
265,_S 34,
violates
physicians
necessary
to
the
b.
The third
of
to
regulation
degree
Commonwealth's
and infection,
disease
of
free
and
expression.
inks.
the
Commonwealth, that
The United
(FDA) considers
the
in
violations
a greater
to
tattooing
to
reactions,
evidence.
Administration
and subject
the
and
662,
supra at
concern
of
restrlcting
that
protections
constitutional-
reactions
tattooing
by anecdotal
spread of
Adverse
risk
phlebotomy,
expression
further
located
or
and criminalizing
free
Broadcastinq,
See Turner
concludes
restricts
preventing
in
therefore
used in
is
which
court
of
the
body piercing,
to
the
qualified
to
which
levels
respect
with
acupuncture.
interest
to
the
ban
can be reduced
it
avoided.
statutory
themselves
i1legaIly
Although
border.
completely
the
niay avail
operating
be completely
regulation
acceptable
artists
not
tattoolng,
because citizens
taLtoo
of
with
associated
do so either,
services
through
risks
the
ameliorate
Although
establishments.e
States
tattoo
as cosmetics,
is
inks
or dyes
supported
only
inks
but
to
be coLor
has not
additives
approved or
15
prohibited
Although
maintains
database
reported
tattooing
inks.
year.
reactions
Marilyn
Larkin,
is
are,
the
not
addresS the
is
is
except
whether
to
statutory
of
risk
the
be "minimal"'
Requires
Art
whether
they
by
ban on tattooing
aboUt adverse
Care
risk
determj-ne
Commonwealth's concern
each
was reported
Assuming that
legitimate.
the
substantially
to
FDA
the
1995, this
The degree of
1993).
are
to
Ancient
90's:
however,
material,
question
non-physicians
the
the
in
Tattooing
inks
from tattoo
injury
Commonwealth's concerns
the
to
or
and Caution,
FDA describes
publj_shed by the
place,
reactions
adverse
of
In
adverse
In
consumer complaints.
incidents
three
Literature
involved
of
a database
in
system
reporting
no mandatory
is
there
tattooing'
dyes for
any particular
use of
the
necessary
is
reactions
to
ink.
The answer is
in
clearlv
or other
are
prone co causing
the
require
complete
about
allergic
of
speech than
See Turner
is
reactions
necessary
Broadcastinq'
inks
to
adverse
to
to
the
ink
address
tattooing
burdens
the
supra aL 562,
I O
inks
certain
then
reactions,
or
by non-physicians
ban on tattooing
adverse
the
risks
the
If
the affirmative'
consumers.
to
resolve
substantially
A
concerns
more
Commonwealth's interest'
Amendment to
G. L. c. 265 ' S 34 , Vio-lates the first
and artic-le 76 of the
United States Constitution
Decl.aration
of Rights,
Massachusetts
4.
that
are
to
speech,
regulation
of
maintained
if
it
is
to
necessary
at
supra
662.
G.L.
licensed
burdens
does not
address
Ward,
377i
c.
expression.
the
Commonwealth's interests.
'l
at
99; Turner
is
is,
to
therefore,
-W.Ea at
Broadcasiino,
except by
tattooing
and unduly
constitutionalLy
protected
unconstitubional.
O'Brien,
overbroad
substantially
right
be
substantiaJ-Iy
Fees
4 2 U . S . C . S - 19 8 3 a n d A t t o r n e y ' s
5.
statute
c.
a content-neutral-
plaintiff's
It
burden
supra
physicians,
the
governmental
judgment both
s 1983 (s 1983).
courts
is
settl-ed that
under S 1983.
is
avail-able
See, e-9.,
Steffel
v.
T h o m p s o n , 4 1 5 U , S . 4 5 2 , 4 15 ( I 9 ' 7 4 )
& Citv
(calling
Council
that
relief.").
not a "person"
BaLtimore,
"settled"
declaratory
is
of
within
federal
rt
state
relief
declaratory
in
under the
declaratory
(permitting
the
v.
Mayor
S 1983 is
"an appropriate
The Conmonweal-thargues,
the meaning of
1 a
vehicle
for
however,
that
it
not
therefore,
in vlill, v.
clear
(1988),
are
the
past,
Deot. of
Michigan
states
that
in
issue
subject
v'
Feliciano
See also
491 U.S.
Police,
state
not "persons"
made
Supreme Court
the
'7
I
58,
for
liability
to
it
Although
statute.r0
the
under
suit
to
subject
846 F'
Dubois,
Supp.1033,1043-1044(D'Mass.1994).Therefore,Lanphear
cannot
any award of
v.
this
maintain
action
attorney's
State Bd. of
Educ. of N.C.,
Educ. of
entitfed
not
to
1 9 9 4)
of
the
the defendant,
sunmary judgment
Parkinson,
the
motion
and is
of
the
is
corunonwealth of
A L L O V I E Da s t o
otherwise
plaintiff,
the
DENIED.
hereby
is
it
reasons,
foregoing
Massachusetts,
plaintj'ff'
It
Stephan A'
O R D E R E Dt h a t
is
further
Lanphear'
th,
for
John R'
O R D E R E Dt h a t
is
ALLOIIED' It
of his civil
10 ..Every person who [deprives an individual
a
n
action at law
i
n
i
n
j
u
r
e
d
p
a
r
t
y
t
h
e
t
o
l
i
a
b
l
e
b
e
s
h
a
l
l
ri-ghtsl
42
r
e
d
r
e
ss"'
f
o
r
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
or other proper
in equity,
suit
u.s.c. s 1983.
rlLanphear, s contention
that he resolved any issue about
"person"
by adding the Attorney
whether the Commonwealth is a
The Supreme Cour
merit '
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
i
s
p
a
r
t
y
d
e
f
e
n
d
a
n
t
Generat as a
heldinWillthat..neitheraStatenoritsofficialsactingin
v'
under S 1983'"
[f,L
are 'persons'
capacities
official
their
(1988)'
7
L
5
8
'
U
'
S
'
4
9
1
P
o
l
i
c
e
,
S
t
a
t
e
Michioan Dept. of
18
is
further
ORDEREDthat
as violative
Constitut.ion
Declaration
of
judgment
of
and article
shall
the
enter
First
16 of
the
declarinq
Amendment to
G.L. c.
the
Unitec
Massachusetts
Rights.
Dared:ocroberfil
Barbara
Justice
rooo
19
J.
of
Superior Court