were arrested and charged under the statutes. Plaintiff Bischoff states in her affidavit: “A female Osceola Sheriffs department officer, who identified herself as Officer Crawford, threatened to arrest all present and specifically sought to arrest Mr. Benham and me.” Bischoff Aff. ¶ 17. Plaintiff Stites also testified that a female Sheriffs department officer threatened to arrest all present and specifically sought to arrest Stites and Benham. Stites Aff. ¶ 16. Taken as true, Plaintiffs’ testimony that they were threatened with arrest for engaging in free speech activities is evidence of an actual and concrete injury wholly adequate to satisfy the injury in fact requirement of standing. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1215-16, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. State Bar of Georgia, 132 F.3d
holding that plaintiff had standing to challenge constitutionality of a georgia criminal trespass law because he was warned twice to stop handbilling and was told that if he engaged in the activity again he would be arrested holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires holding that an employee might be entitled to overtime where he was told that he would not be paid overtime but was not told to limit his hours holding that under royer the defendant was arrested when he was prevented from boarding his plane placed in handcuffs involuntarily transported in restraints to an official holding area some distance from the place of the original stop confined to a small interrogation room and kept there under observation for more than a momentary period yet he was never informed how long he would be detained nor told that he was not under arrest holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present