Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/389

 502us1$18Z 08-21-96 15:27:37 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 224 (1991)

231

Stevens, J., dissenting

The letter is the key piece of evidence supposedly justifying a finding that the officers reasonably believed that Bryant had threatened the life of the President. Bryant freely admitted to writing the letter, and the letter does refer to, among other things, a scheme to assassinate President Reagan. The letter does not, however, state that it is Bryant who intends to assassinate the President. Rather, the letter warns that “Mr Image” intends to harm the President. Nor does the letter leave the identity of “Mr Image” in doubt. In its first sentence, the letter identifies the term parenthetically: “Mr ‘Image’ (Communist white men within the ‘National Council of Churches).’ ” Bryant v. United States Treasury Department, Secret Service, 903 F. 2d 717, 724 (CA9 1990) (reprinting Bryant’s letter). The letter then proceeds to explain the derivation of the term: “The name ‘Image to the Beast’ is a biblical name given to and identifys [sic] the National Council of Churches as a body. . . though the NCC is composed largely of women, it is men who really control it. So it is appropriate to respectfully address the NCC as Mr IMAGE!” Ibid. A postscript to the letter further specifies the Biblical origin of the term and its identification with the National Council of Churches: “Mr Image ←(NCC) is scard [sic] to death over the posiability [sic] of being exposed by the prophecy of Rev. 13:11–17 & Rev. 14:9– 11.” 1 Id., at 727. At other places in the letter, as well, “Mr Image” is identified with the National Council of Churches through parenthetical references. Bryant’s letter advances a conspiracy theory accusing the National Council of Churches of spreading communism and 1 In the original, “(NCC)” is written above the word “Image,” and the connecting arrow runs downward. Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in No. CV 86–3134 (CD Cal.), p. 61. The arrow is omitted in the copy of the letter reprinted in the Court of Appeals’ opinion.