Opinion
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AUBSC-CV-12-60
01-23-2017
STATE OF MAINE, Plaintiff, v. RONALD CHAMPAGNE, Defendant.
STATE OF MAINE
ANDROSCOGGIN, ss ORDER ON PERMANENT INJUNCTION Before the Court is the State's Motion for Permanent Injunction.
I. Background
On March 22, 2012, Paul Groleau ("Groleau") stopped at the causeway or boat launch on Lake Auburn on his way home. According to the State, a Cadillac up to Groleau's Subaru, rolled down the driver side window, and yelled: "You're a fucking fag and I'm gonna ram your ass right into the lake." The Cadillac then took off and began to make a U-turn. Groleau exited the parking area and headed back towards Auburn. The Cadillac turned around and began to follow Groleau. Groleau called 9-1-1 from his cell phone. The Cadillac drove into the back of the Subaru. The Cadillac drove into the back of the Subaru a second time, knocking the phone out of Groleau's hand. Groleau provided the dispatcher with information that the car was a Cadillac and a partial reading of the license plate on the Cadillac. The only car registered matching the provided description belongs to Defendant Ronald Champagne.
When Deputy Lovering spoke with the Defendant that same evening, Defendant referred to the Lake Auburn boat launch as a "pickle park" and stated that he "didn't want to go over there because there was nothing but queers there." in order to enforce public policy, the State is not required to make a showing of either irreparable harm or a balance of the equities. Therefore, the Court considers only whether the State has carried its burden of showing success on the merits.
The State brings this action pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 4681, which authorizes the Maine Attorney General to seek injunction or other equitable relief for violations of the Maine Civil Rights Act. In order for the State to succeed, the State must show that the Defendant violated the Maine Civil Rights Act by interfering with Groleau's "right to engage in lawful activities without being subject to physical force or violence, damage or destruction of property, trespass on property or the threat of physical force or violence, damage or destruction of property or trespass on property motivated by reason of race, color, religion, sex, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation." 5 M.R.S. § 4684-A. At trial, the State sought to prove that Defendant interfered with Groleau's right to engage in lawful activities by threatening violence and committing acts of physical force causing property damage and damage to Groleau's person, motivated by a belief that Groleau was homosexual. to concerns he had prior to the incident about Defendant's mental state and Defendant's decision to stop taking his medications. Roberge stated that the two of them had previously discussed the sexual activity that occurred at the boat launch and that Defendant had objected to any extramarital encounters occurring there. Roberge testified that two years before the incident, Defendant told Roberge that God was telling Defendant to "clean up this mess" referring to the activities occurring at the boat launch.
William Scott, Jr., a mechanic and close friend of Defendant; "Skip" Edgar Haines, who has known Defendant for 12 years and goes to his repair shop; and Alan Girouard, who has known Defendant for 3 or 4 years, all testified on behalf of Defendant and stated that Defendant deals respectfully with individuals of different backgrounds.
The State presented evidence that Defendant was motivated by Groleau's sexual orientation. The State presented testimony of Deputy Lovering from the hearing on preliminary injunction that Defendant called the boat launch area a "pickle park", that "there was nothing but queers there and there were guys in every car", and that he "didn't want to go over there because there was nothing but queers there." (Tr. 16-17). On March 28, when Officer Lemos arrested Champagne, Officer Lemos testified that Defendant "began talking about the causeway, specifically referring to the queers at the causeway. He made reference to that he couldn't go down to watch a sunset with his girlfriend because of all the queers." (Tr. 40).
The Court finds that Defendant's actions of March 22, 2012 were motivated by his perception of Groleau's sexual orientation. Based upon Defendant's threats at Pursuant to the Maine Civil Rights Act (5 M.R.S. § 4681): ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY VIOLATES THIS ORDER COMMITS A CLASS D CRIME PUNISHABLE UP TO 364 DAYS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $2,000.00. DATE: 1/23/17
/s/_________
MaryGay Kennedy
Justice, Superior Court
See State v. Sirois, 478 A.2d 1117, 1121-1122, 1984 Me. LEXIS 743, *11 (Me. 1984) "On the basis of the evidence of defendant's continued discharge and operation of a surface waste water disposal system, the Superior Court, without any further showing, was justified in granting injunctive relief whether or not the license was in effect. Ackerman v. Tri-City Geriatric & Health Care, Inc., 55 Ohio St. 2d 51, 56, 378 N.E.2d 145, 148-49 (1978) (where an injunction is authorized by statute designed to provide a government agent means to enforce public policy, no balancing of equities is necessary); UV Industries, Inc. v. Posner, 466 F, Supp. 1251, 1255 (D. Me. 1979) (where statute authorizes injunctive relief upon showing of a violation, the party seeking such relief need not make a showing of irreparable harm in the normal equity sense); 7 Moore's Federal Practice § 65.04(1) n.7b (2d ed. 1983)."