Editing Ladue, Missouri (section)

==Controversies==
In the early 1990s, the city tried to force a resident to take down a yard sign that said "Say No to the War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now" as it violated a city law. The ACLU sued, arguing that the right to place the sign was protected by the right to free speech enshrined in the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|1st Amendment]]. The ensuing legal battle went to the [[United States Supreme Court]] which unanimously ruled, in ''[[City of Ladue v. Gilleo]]'', that the right to place the sign was protected by the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]].<ref name="LaduevGilleo">{{cite court |litigants=CITY OF LADUE ET AL. v. GILLEO |vol=512 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=43 |pinpoint=55 |court=The Supreme Court of the United States |date=June 13, 1994 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/43/case.html |access-date=October 9, 2014 |quote=Here, in contrast, Ladue has almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important. It has totally foreclosed that medium to political, religious, or personal messages. Signs that react to a local happening or express a view on a controversial issue both reflect and animate a change in the life of a community. Often placed on lawns or in windows, residential signs play an important part in political campaigns, during which they are displayed to signal the resident's support for particular candidates, parties, or causes. They may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media, but residential signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression. [...] Although prohibitions foreclosing entire media may be completely free of content or viewpoint discrimination, the danger they pose to the freedom of speech is readily apparent-by eliminating a common means of speaking, such measures can suppress too much speech.}}</ref>

In 1986, the City of Ladue sued residents E. Terrence Jones and [[Joan Kelly Horn]] for living together without being married.<ref name="USAToday2006">{{cite news |author=Moore, Martha T. |title=Parents, kids not necessarily 'family' everywhere |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-15-unmarried-family_x.htm |newspaper=USA Today |date=May 15, 2006 |access-date=September 29, 2014 |archive-date=October 15, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141015041843/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-15-unmarried-family_x.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Ladue officials had ordered them to marry or leave their home. The [[Missouri Court of Appeals]] sided with the city, stating in ''City of Ladue v. Horn'' that "A man and woman living together, sharing pleasures and certain responsibilities, does not per se constitute a family in even the conceptual sense. [...] There is no doubt that there is a governmental interest in marriage and in preserving the integrity of the biological or legal family. There is no concomitant governmental interest in keeping together a group of unrelated persons, no matter how closely they simulate a family. Further, there is no state policy which commands that groups of people may live under the same roof in any section of a municipality they choose."<ref name="JustiaHornLadue">{{cite court |litigants=CITY OF LADUE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joan K. HORN and E. Terrence Jones, Defendants-Appellants |vol=720 |reporter=S.W.2d |opinion=745 |pinpoint=752 |court=Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three |date=November 4, 1986 |url=http://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/court-of-appeals/1987/51415-0.html |access-date=September 29, 2014 |quote=There is no doubt that there is a governmental interest in marriage and in preserving the integrity of the biological or legal family. There is no concomitant governmental interest in keeping together a group of unrelated persons, no matter how closely they simulate a family. Further, there is no state policy which commands that groups of people may live under the same roof in any section of a municipality they choose.}}</ref> Under Chapter 213 of the Missouri Human Rights Act (§213.040.1),<ref name="MHRA-213">{{cite act |title=Unlawful housing practices--discrimination in housing--sufficient compliance with other standards--local government compliance --construction of law--housing for older persons, defined--conviction for controlled substances, effect--religious organizations, effect of. |number=Title XII, Public Health and Welfare |language=en |date=2005 |article=Chapter 213.040, Human Rights |url=http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/21300000401.html |access-date=September 29, 2014 }} {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150105204817/http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/21300000401.HTML |date=January 5, 2015 }}</ref> passed after the ''Ladue v. Horn'' case, housing discrimination on the basis of familial status is now illegal.

In 2010, the former chief of police, Larry White, sued the City of Ladue for wrongful termination.<ref name="PD-Ladue-White">{{cite web |author=Ratcliffe, Heather |publisher=St Louis Post-Dispatch |title=Fired Ladue police chief claims bosses wanted racial harassment |url=http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/fired-ladue-police-chief-claims-bosses-wanted-racial-harassment/article_0b848e81-ed1c-5086-904e-ab0496ba1e47.html |date=March 26, 2010 |access-date=September 29, 2014 |archive-date=February 2, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202024604/http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/fired-ladue-police-chief-claims-bosses-wanted-racial-harassment/article_0b848e81-ed1c-5086-904e-ab0496ba1e47.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The suit was dismissed by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in 2012 and the dismissal upheld by the Missouri Court of Appeals in 2013.<ref>{{cite court
 |litigants = Larry White vs. City of Ladue, et al
 |court =Missouri Court of Appeals
 |date =December 17, 2013
 |url= http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=68417}}</ref>

Despite comprising only 0.88% of the local population, black drivers in Ladue comprised 575 (of 4107 total, or 14%) stops in 2014. The resulting "disparity index" indicates a black driver was 15.98 times more likely than the average driver to be stopped by the Ladue Police Department in 2014, but the police department contends the statistics are skewed by the local racial composition.<ref>{{cite report |url=http://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/public-safety/2014agencyreports.pdf?sfvrsn=2 |title=2014 Annual Report: Missouri Vehicle Stops |publisher=Office of the Missouri Attorney General |date=2015 |access-date=5 May 2016 |quote=Agency Response: Since 2001, The City of Ladue and similar communities throughout Missouri are particularly critical of the Attorney General’s Vehicle Stops Report because it does not accurately measure the population of individuals (by race or ethnicity) at risk of being stopped by its police officers. This overly inflates the disparity index in Ladue and these communities making it appear as if their officers are racial profiling. The City of Ladue has developed an interactive system that relies on an internal benchmark for monitoring vehicle stops at the individual officer level; Identified additional methods for evaluating vehicle stops and post-stop events (i.e. arrests, searches, etc.) that are more precise than the methods used by the Attorney General; and subjected our vehicle stop data to a more rigorous analysis by a nationally recognized racial profiling expert. As always, the City of Ladue Police Department’s “training each year will focus on and shall stress understanding and respect for racial and cultural differences, and develop effective officer behavior in carrying out law enforcement duties in a racially and culturally diverse environment |archive-date=December 29, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229223647/http://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/public-safety/2014agencyreports.pdf?sfvrsn=2 |url-status=live }}</ref>