Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/59/276.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:40:23+00:00

Document:
JOE WOLLAM, Individually and on Behalf of the Members of CULINARY WORKERS AND BARTENDERS UNION, LOCAL 535, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Jerome J. Bunker, City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants.
Lionel Richman, Lewis Garrett and Herbert M. Ansell for Plaintiff and Respondent.
 While an ordinance may properly regulate the use of sound trucks if narrowly drawn to avoid specific evils, such as raucous noise or traffic congestion, an ordinance which indiscriminately sweeps within its ambit an inhibition of the communication of a message invades the right of free speech. Because, as we shall show, the instant ordinance falls within the latter category, it cannot stand.
On August 27, 1958, the City Council of Palm Springs enacted Ordinance No. 395, adding chapter 44 to the city's ordinance code. The ordinance governs the use of sound trucks; it consists of five articles, each article incorporating numerous provisions. Article 440 contains definitions applicable throughout the chapter; article 441 governs registration of trucks for commercial use; article 442 covers trucks for noncommercial use; article 443 sets up regulations pertaining to the use of both commercial and noncommercial trucks; and article 444 provides penalties and a provision for separability.
Both the commercial and noncommercial user must file a registration statement with the chief of police containing specified information, including the name of the owner and user of the truck, the wattage and volume of the equipment of the truck, and the distance for which sound will be thrown from the truck. The registration statement, after being certified by the chief of police and returned to the applicant, apparently serves as a license for use. The chief of police "shall not return to the applicant a certified copy of the Registration Statement," if he finds, among other matters, that the conditions of pedestrian movement are such that the sound truck "would constitute a detriment to traffic safety" or if the application reveals that the applicant would violate the regulations prescribed in article 443.
Article 443 restricts the hours of use to four specified hours a day, totally forbidding utilization on Sundays and holidays; it prohibits the operation of sound trucks unless the truck [59 Cal. 2d 279] proceeds at a speed of at least ten miles per hour; fn. 1 it requires that the volume of sound be controlled so that it will not be audible in excess of 200 feet from the truck, not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing, and not be a nuisance to persons within the area of audibility; fn. 2 it limits the equipment usable to that having a maximum output of 15 watts, and it includes other provisions not presently pertinent.
Plaintiff Wollam brought this action on behalf of himself and the members of the Culinary Workers and Bartenders Union, Local 535, attacking the ordinance as unconstitutional. The trial court upheld this contention upon the ground that the ordinance unconstitutionally sought to prevent stationary use of sound trucks.
The sole issue before this court relates to the constitutional [59 Cal. 2d 280] validity of section 4430.3 which the trial court concluded to be invalid "insofar as it applies to the dissemination of information from motor vehicles lawfully parked by requiring said motor vehicles to be ambulatory." To resolve the stated problem we must answer two questions. First, does the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, which admittedly applies to the content of the communication, extend, as well, to the means of communication? More particularly, does it include sound trucks? Second, if so, does the section in question exceed the permissible range of regulation so as to impinge on constitutionally guaranteed rights? For the reasons hereinafter set out we believe that both of these questions should be answered affirmatively.
In the first of these cases, Saia v. New York (1948) 334 U.S. 558 [68 S. Ct. 1148, 92 L. Ed. 1574], the court declared unconstitutional an ordinance of the City of Lockport, New York, which prohibited the use of sound amplifying equipment unless authorized by the chief of police. Saia, a Jehovah's Witness, suffered conviction for violation of the ordinance in setting up a loud speaker in a public park and broadcasting religious programs without obtaining a permit from the chief of police.
Justice Douglas, speaking for the majority of the United States Supreme Court, held that the use of this means of communication fell within the protection of free speech of the First Amendment and that the ordinance failed. Instead of narrowly and specifically prohibiting the abuses that precipitated the ordinance, it granted a general discretion to the chief of police which could be applied in an area wide of the mark. The court explained, "The statute is not narrowly [59 Cal. 2d 281] drawn to regulate the hours or places of use of loudspeakers, or the volume of sound (the decibels) to which they must be adjusted. ... The right to be heard is placed in the uncontrolled discretion of the Chief of Police. He stands athwart the channels of communication as an obstruction which can be removed only after criminal trial and conviction and lengthy appeal. A more effective previous restraint is difficult to imagine. ... Loudspeakers are today indispensable instruments of effective public speech. The sound truck has become an accepted method of political campaigning. It is the way people are reached. ..."
Justice Frankfurter, with Justices Reed and Burton concurring, dissented upon the basis that "the limitations by New York upon the exercise of appellant's rights of utterance did not ... exceed the accommodation between the conflicting interests which the State was here entitled to make in view of the time and place and circumstances." (At p. 566; italics added.) Justice Jackson, alone of the members of the court, held that the regulation did not involve the issue of free speech.
Justices Frankfurter and Jackson in separate opinions concurred with the majority for the same reasons which prompted them to dissent in Saia. Justice Murphy dissented without opinion.
In an opinion in which Justices Douglas and Rutledge concurred, Justice Black also dissented. The basic thrust of Justice Black's opinion indicated that the court's limitation of the ordinance to equipment emitting loud and raucous noises lacked support; that the defendant had not been charged or convicted with such a limited offense, and that the record did not show that the noise emitted was "loud or raucous." Further, he pointed out that the State Supreme Court in its decision had not so limited the offense. On this basis, Justice Black concluded that the ordinance constituted an absolute prohibition and fell within the dictates of Saia. In a separate opinion Justice Rutledge stated that, aside from questions of free speech, the ordinance, as indicated by the differing interpretations of the Supreme Court, should be invalidated as too vague to constitute due process.
[2, 3] The rule of these cases that the sound truck falls within the constitutional protection of free speech and that it is subject to the specific regulation of its ill effects rests upon the realities of the modern role of such trucks and the necessity for reasonable curtailment of the excessive use of their sound mechanism.
 The right of free speech necessarily embodies the means used for its dissemination because the right is worthless in the absence of a meaningful method of its expression. To take the position that the right of free speech consists merely of the right to be free from censorship of the content rather than any protection of the means used, would, if carried to its logical conclusion, eliminate the right entirely.  The right to speak freely must encompass inherently the right to communicate. The right to speak one's views aloud, restricted by the ban that prevented anyone from listening, would frame a hollow right. Rather, freedom of speech entails communication; it contemplates effective communication.
 On the other hand the selection of the means of communication and the use of such means is not limitless. The municipality may issue reasonable and necessary regulations as to such matters. But the right to regulate does not necessarily sanction the outright prohibition.  The municipality cannot justify the prohibition of sound trucks upon the ground that the municipality cannot otherwise avoid loud and raucous noise.  The municipality in the proper exercise [59 Cal. 2d 285] of its police power may prescribe volume limitations.  Thus the proper test of regulation by a municipality in this area turns upon whether the regulation is a reasonable and necessary one. A measure unnecessary for police purposes should not serve as the justification for an abridgement of the fundamental freedom of free speech.
We therefore turn to the second question which we proposed above: whether the city has exceeded the permissible range of regulation so as to impinge on constitutionally guaranteed rights. We must determine whether section 4430.3 fn. 8 is a necessary regulation governing the use of this means of communication.
Section 4430.3 primarily aims to control traffic. The provision is drawn from a model ordinance recommended by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers in their Report No. 123 (1948) entitled, "Municipal Control of Noise--Sound Trucks--Sound Advertising Aircraft--Unnecessary Noises--Model Annotated Ordinances." The report partly sets out the basis for the provision requiring sound trucks to be ambulatory. "This suggested regulation is designed to prevent the operator of a sound truck from blaring forth his message continuously from one spot as it is generally conceded that continuous noise is more than likely to result in injury to nerves, health, annoyance, disturbance and nuisance. ... Also, and primarily, if the truck keeps moving, it will not cause crowds to collect about it with the usual attendant traffic congestion and resultant hazards. ... The requirement of a speed of at least ten miles per hour for sound trucks prevents intentional traffic congestion as well as the evils already referred to. It seems well established that more people will be killed or injured where streets are crowded by pedestrians and motorists with some, or both, wanting to move on and some wanting to listen to the sound truck. If the sound truck keeps moving pedestrians cannot crowd around it and get hit by passing cars. ..."
Although the ordinance thus proposes to prevent traffic congestion by the requirement that the sound trucks keep moving, its inevitable result must virtually prohibit the effective use of the truck for any complete message or communication. Its mechanized voice must necessarily be restricted to a short blurb, as the truck, with controlled volume, [59 Cal. 2d 286] rolls past. Any address of sustained reason becomes impossible.
Section 4430.3 covers a larger area than the excision of the evils to which it was directed. Its reach is not limited to the prohibition of a sound truck which impedes the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic or which creates a dangerous traffic situation. Rather it sets up a blanket prohibition against the use of a stationary sound truck. The provision fails because, assuming its valid police purpose, it proceeds beyond that which is necessary. Because of its breadth it restrains both improper and proper communication; it exceeds its justification.
To the extent that section 4430.3 seeks to prevent prolonged distraction and annoyance by operation of the truck in one spot, the identical purpose is achieved by section 4430.7. fn. 9 That section imposes volume limitation and requires that the sound be so controlled that it will not be "disturbing or a nuisance to persons within the area of audibility."
 In the instant case the obstruction to the use of the sound truck to convey a complete message is absolute. As we have pointed out, this prohibition of the use of the stationary sound truck is not necessary in order to avoid traffic hazards because the ordinance provides other means for so doing. Nor [59 Cal. 2d 288] does the ordinance specifically direct itself to the elimination of loud and raucous noise; instead, it prohibits the dissemination of an address by means of the truck which is not loud or raucous. The regulation, which narrows down to loud and raucous, upheld in Haggerty, embraces all sounds here. The volume of sound which could properly be prohibited in the narrow channel of loud and raucous is no narrow channel here. It is the volume of sound which, like water, may be distributed over wide lands, shallow in depth and slight in impact.
In summary, the vice of the present ordinance lies in its practical prohibition of the conveyance of a message to the public. The ordinance prevents any continuous statement, argument, or sustained presentation of a point of view that cannot be transmitted during the truck's fleeting, momentary passage. Yet the purposes of the ordinance could have been achieved without such an incursion into the field of free speech. An ordinance narrowly drawn may properly reach to the evils which it seeks to avoid. Instead, here, the ordinance sweeps within its broad ambit the constitutional right to tell a whole story by means of this method of communication.
For this reason, we hold that section 4430.3 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Palm Springs is unconstitutional. The judgment is affirmed.
Gibson, C. J., Traynor, J., Peters, J., and Peek, J., concurred.
I would reverse the judgment for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Shepard, and concurred in by Mr. Presiding Justice Griffin and Mr. Justice Coughlin, in the opinion prepared for the District Court of Appeal in Wollam v. City of Palm Springs (Cal.App.) 24 Cal. Rptr. 142.
The principal question here involved is the constitutionality of section 4430.3 of article 443 of Ordinance No. 395 enacted by the City Council of Palm Springs. A majority of this court holds that the above mentioned section is unconstitutional because it abridges the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Section 4430.3 of the ordinance provides that sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated unless the truck upon [59 Cal. 2d 289] which it is mounted is operated at a speed of at least ten miles an hour except when the truck is stopped because of traffic conditions.
As set forth in the majority opinion, the ordinance was based upon a model recommended by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers. That body, in its report, stated that the reason for the regulation was to prevent the operator of a sound truck from blaring forth a message from one spot because continuous noise was more likely to result in injury to nerves, health, disturbances and nuisances, as well as to cause traffic congestion with resulting injuries and fatalities.
It is obvious from the wording of the report that traffic control was not the only reason for the model ordinance. A stationary truck blaring forth its message is very much of a traffic hazard because of the natural inclination of motorists to look for the source of the sound and away from preceding or oncoming traffic. It is also a problem insofar as pedestrians are concerned because of the natural curiosity of idle persons to gather and obstruct public sidewalks and streets.
Cities and counties everywhere are seeking a solution to the difficult problem of regulating sound trucks so as not to unreasonably interfere with freedom of speech and at the same time safeguard others in the enjoyment of their private property and the public highways.
Our court, in upholding a county antinoise ordinance in Haggerty v. Associated Farmers of Cal., 44 Cal. 2d 60, 70  [279 P.2d 734], said: "The county, in the exercise of the [59 Cal. 2d 290] police power of the state, has a legitimate interest in the preservation of the safety and tranquility of its citizens. It cannot be said that the present ordinance is not reasonably directed to that end."
The opinion continued, at page 87: "City streets are recognized [59 Cal. 2d 291] as a normal place for the exchange of ideas by speech or paper. But this does not mean the freedom is beyond all control. We think it is a permissible exercise of legislative discretion to bar sound trucks with broadcasts of public interest, amplified to a loud and raucous volume, from the public ways of municipalities. On the business streets of cities ... such distractions would be dangerous to traffic at all hours useful for the dissemination of information, and in the residential thoroughfares the quiet and tranquility so desirable for city dwellers would likewise be at the mercy of advocates of particular religious, social or political persuasions. We cannot believe that rights of free speech compel a muncipality to allow such mechanical voice amplification on any of its streets."
Further, the court said in Kovacs: "All regulatory enactments are prohibitory so far as their restrictions are concerned, and the prohibition of this ordinance as to a use of streets is merely regulatory. Sound trucks may be utilized in places such as parks or other open spaces off the streets. The constitutionality of the challenged ordinance as violative of appellant's right of free speech does not depend upon so narrow an issue as to whether its provisions are cast in the words of prohibition or regulation. The question is whether or not there is a real abridgment of the rights of free speech.
The use of the two words "hours" and "places" implies that there may be an absolute prohibition at certain hours and at certain places. It does not mean that there must be permissible hours at every place.
The Palm Springs ordinance follows precisely the guide set forth in the Saia case. It is narrowly drawn to regulate the hours of use, the volume of sound, and the places of use. It does not permit any official, or official body, to control the use of loud speaking equipment in his, or its, uncontrolled discretion, and, therefore, it avoids the infirmity of the ordinance involved in the Saia case which, according to Mr. Justice Douglas, because it was not so narrowly drawn, sanctioned a "device for suppression of free communication of ideas."
In Commonwealth v. Geuss, 168 Pa. Super. 22 [76 A.2d 500], affirmed 368 Pa. 290 [81 A.2d 553], an ordinance was upheld that entirely prohibited the use of sound amplifying [59 Cal. 2d 292] devices on the busiest streets of Allentown, Pennyslvania. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial federal question (342 U.S. 912), citing Kovacs v. Cooper, supra.
The majority concludes that "the vice of the present ordinance lies in its practical prohibition of the conveyance of a message to the public," and "... the ordinance sweeps within its broad ambit the constitutional right to tell a whole story by means of this method of communication."
Mr. Justice Peters, in a recent unanimous opinion of this court, American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education, ante, pp. 203, 220 [28 Cal. Rptr. 700, 378 P.2d 980] said: "In the final analysis, the determination that a particular statute is or is not too broad in the constitutional sense turns not so much on its language as upon its effect. A statute may be phrased in words that are 'broad,' in that they convey general rather than specific concepts, and yet be the means of stating a regulation that is narrow and limited in its application. (See for example the two ordinances involved in Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 [68 S. Ct. 1148, 92 L. Ed. 1574], and Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 [69 S. Ct. 448, 93 L. Ed. 513, 10 A.L.R.2d 608].)"
The effect sought by plaintiff, i.e., a guarantee that a complete message be conveyed, can only be achieved if it is granted an exclusive permit. If others are permitted the same freedom at the same time and place, each sound truck [59 Cal. 2d 294] will necessarily interfere with the other so that none of the messages will be coherent, and the clamor from several megaphones will be unbearable.
The majority of this court overlooks the crucial fact that when plaintiff asserts a right to remain parked at the curb at the site of the trade dispute, it is not claiming or making a public use of the street in common with all other members of the public, but is claiming an absolute and exclusionary right to appropriate a particular segment of the street for its private and exclusive use.
It is fundamental that the basic right of free speech guaranteed by the Constitution belongs equally to everyone, and the effect, if the majority opinion is followed to its logical conclusion, is that confusion and disorder would prevail on the streets of Palm Springs. The striking employees could park their sound truck in front of their employer's place of business and proceed to blast forth their message in loud tones, while the employer could park a sound truck of his own in front of his place of business and blast forth his message in equally loud tones, with the result that a chaotic condition would be created which the innocent citizens and peace officers would be powerless to alleviate. Such a condition in a civilized state would be intolerable.
That such a situation was never intended to be sanctioned by the guarantee of free speech was pronounced in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 [60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352]: "When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious."
Since the ordinance in the present case bears a substantial relation to the health, safety and general welfare of the public as a whole and is not arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious, thus constituting a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is a valid exercise of the police power of the city, and it does not unreasonably interfere with plaintiff's right of free speech. Freedom of speech on the public streets is not prohibited; it is only the amplification of such speech by the means of stationary sound trucks at which the ordinance is aimed.
For each and all the reasons enunciated above, I would sustain the ordinance in its entirety.
FN 1. Section 4430.3 of article 443 provides: "Sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated unless the sound truck upon which such equipment is mounted is operated at a speed of at least ten (10) miles per hour except when said truck is stopped or impeded by traffic. Where stopped by traffic, the sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated for longer than one (1) minute at each such stop."
FN 2. Section 4430.7 of article 443 reads: "The volume of sound shall be controlled so that it will not be audible for a distance in excess of two hundred feet (200') from the sound truck, and the volume of sound shall be so controlled that it will not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing, or a nuisance to persons within the area of audibility."
FN 4. This inclusion is no longer open to question. See e.g., Smith v. California (1959) 361 U.S. 147 [80 S. Ct. 215, 4 L. Ed. 2d 205].
FN 5. See 34 Cornell L.Q. 626; 62 Harv.L.Rev. 1228; 47 Mich. L. Rev. 1007; 14 Mo. L. Rev. 194; 22 So. Cal. L. Rev. 416; 2 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 561; 97 U. Pa. L. Rev. 730.
FN 6. Haggerty v. Associated Farmers of California (1955) 44 Cal. 2d 60 [279 P.2d 734].
FN 7. Two decisions have sustained absolute prohibitions of sound trucks since the decision in Kovacs. (Brinkman v. City of Gainesville (1951) 83 Ga.App. 508 [64 S.E.2d 344]; State ex rel. Nicholas v. Headley (1950, Fla.) 48 So. 2d 80.) Both of these decisions, however, ignore the Saia decision.
FN 8. See footnote 1, supra.
FN 9. See footnote 2, supra.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.