Opinion ID: 1814564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutional Challenges to Section 712.8.

Text: A. Standard of review. Milner claims section 712.8 is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague as applied to his conduct. See U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV. We review constitutional claims de novo. State v. Huisman, 544 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1996). When considering a challenge to the validity of a statute, we presume the statute is constitutional and give it any reasonable construction necessary to uphold it. State v. Hunter, 550 N.W.2d 460, 462 (Iowa 1996). The challenger has the burden to demonstrate that the statute is unconstitutional by negating every reasonable basis for supporting the validity of the statute. State v. Osmundson, 546 N.W.2d 907, 909 (Iowa 1996). B. Overbreadth. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law `abridging the freedom of speech.' State v. McKnight, 511 N.W.2d 389, 391 (Iowa 1994) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. 1). The federal constitution's protection of speech applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 1217-18 (1940). In addition, the Iowa Constitution generally imposes the same restrictions on the regulation of speech as does the federal constitution. E.g., Des Moines Register & Tribune Co. v. Osmundson, 248 N.W.2d 493, 498 (Iowa 1976) (addressing freedom of the press). The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech prevents states from punishing the use of words or language not within `narrowly limited classes of speech.' Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 521-22, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 1105-06, 31 L.Ed.2d 408, 414 (1972) (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571, 62 S.Ct. 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031, 1035 (1942)). Consequently, a statute must be narrowly drawn or authoritatively construed so as to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible of application to protected expression. Id. at 522, 92 S.Ct. at 1106, 31 L.Ed.2d at 414. A statute violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally overbroad if (1) it substantially proscribes protected speech judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep, Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 112, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1697, 109 L.Ed.2d 98, 111 (1990) (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2917, 37 L.Ed.2d 830, 842 (1973)), and (2) the court cannot narrow the statute to cover only nonprotected speech, Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 490-91, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 1123, 14 L.Ed.2d 22, 30-31 (1965). When a statute purports to regulate speech, even one to whom the statute may constitutionally be applied is permitted to urge the statute is facially overbroad. Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 610-12, 93 S.Ct. at 2914-16, 37 L.Ed.2d at 839-40; City of Maquoketa v. Russell, 484 N.W.2d 179, 182 (Iowa 1992). Because we have now defined threats as an expression of an intention to inflict injury or damage on another, section 712.8 clearly regulates speech. See Wurtz v. Risley, 719 F.2d 1438, 1442 (9th Cir.1983) (holding Montana statute proscribing certain threats was directed at pure speech for purposes of overbreadth analysis). We must now decide whether the speech targeted by section 712.8true threatsis constitutionally protected. For the reasons that follow, we conclude this category of speech does not fall within the protection of the First Amendment. In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969), the United States Supreme Court reviewed a defendant's conviction under a federal statute making it a crime for any person to knowingly and willfully ... [make] any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States. 394 U.S. at 705, 89 S.Ct. at 1400, 22 L.Ed.2d at 666 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 871(a)). Implying threats were not protected by the First Amendment, the Court stated that [w]hat is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech. Id. at 707, 89 S.Ct. at 1401, 22 L.Ed.2d at 667. The Court went on to state that the statute under which the defendant was convicted applied only to a true threat, and not to political hyperbole such as the statements of the defendant. [4] Id. at 708, 89 S.Ct. at 1401, 22 L.Ed.2d at 667. Accordingly, the Court reversed the defendant's conviction. Id. at 708, 89 S.Ct. at 1402, 22 L.Ed.2d at 668. More recently, the Court has stated the reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment: protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 388, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 2546, 120 L.Ed.2d 305, 321 (1992). Some courts have interpreted Watts as identifying another category of speech not protected by the First Amendmenttrue threats. E.g., Melugin v. Hames, 38 F.3d 1478, 1484 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Bellrichard, 994 F.2d 1318, 1321-22 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 928, 114 S.Ct. 337, 126 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993); United States v. Maxton, 940 F.2d 103, 105-06 (4th Cir.1991). A true threat is a statement that an ordinary, reasonable person, familiar with the context in which the statement was made, would interpret as a threat. See Bellrichard, 994 F.2d at 1323-24; Maxton, 940 F.2d at 106. Other courts, although not relying on a true threat analysis, have also held that threats are not protected by the First Amendment. E.g., Masson v. Slaton, 320 F.Supp. 669, 672 (N.D.Ga.1970) (stating First Amendment does not extend to the threatening of terror, inciting of riots, or placing another's life or property in danger); Lanthrip v. State, 235 Ga. 10, 218 S.E.2d 771, 773 (1975) (holding terrorist threats to a person fall outside protected expression); Thomas v. Commonwealth, 574 S.W.2d 903, 909-10 (Ky.Ct.App.1978) (holding threats clearly without constitutional protection); Commonwealth v. Green, 287 Pa.Super. 220, 429 A.2d 1180, 1182-83 (1981) (holding threats inferior to interest in citizen welfare even if expression is involved). We agree with these courts and hold the First Amendment does not protect speech that constitutes a true threat. Milner claims that an interpretation of section 712.8 that would encompass his statements necessarily results in an overbroad statute because his statements were not true threats, but were political speech protected by the constitution. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14-15, 96 S.Ct. 612, 632-33, 46 L.Ed.2d 659, 685 (1976) (stating the First Amendment affords the broadest protection to political expression). Milner relies on our decision in Fratzke, in which we held the State could not constitutionally punish an individual for criticizing the conduct of a state trooper, even when that criticism was offensive. See Fratzke, 446 N.W.2d at 785. In Fratzke, we concluded the defendant's statements were not fighting words, but protected criticism of the government. Id. In relying on Fratzke, Milner overlooks that the statements of dissatisfaction made in that case contained no fighting words or threats. In contrast, Milner's statements were not mere expressions of dissatisfaction with government employees; they were, as the trial court found, threats to place an explosive device in or near the DES building. See Melugin, 38 F.3d at 1484-85 (holding evidence supported finding that private veiled threat of harm to judicial officer in order to obtain immediate jury trial was prohibited threat and not political hyperbole); Tobias v. State, 884 S.W.2d 571, 580 (Tex.Ct.App.1994) (holding defendant's threats directed at three specific justices were not mere political statements), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1180, 116 S.Ct. 25, 132 L.Ed.2d 908 (1995). Milner's statements transcended mere criticism and threatened the personal safety of the DES employees. See Smith v. State, 532 So.2d 50, 53 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1988) (stating that although public figures must expect criticism ..., [t]hey need not ... passively accept statements or conduct transcending mere criticism which threaten personal or family safety). Therefore, the application of section 712.8 to the statements made by Milner do not implicate the regulation of political expression. We have interpreted section 712.8 as reaching only true threats, not political speech. Our application of this statute to Milner's statements to DES employees is not at odds with this interpretation. Accordingly, section 712.8 is not impermissibly overbroad. See Melugin, 38 F.3d at 1485 (holding Alaska statute proscribing only true threats was not overbroad). C. Vagueness. Milner also argues section 712.8 is vague as applied to his conduct. [5] As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903, 909 (1983); accord Hunter, 550 N.W.2d at 463. As used in a vague-as-applied claim, this doctrine simply means that criminal responsibility should not attach where one could not reasonably understand that his contemplated conduct is proscribed. State v. Price, 237 N.W.2d 813, 816 (Iowa 1976) (quoting United States v. National Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32-33, 83 S.Ct. 594, 598, 9 L.Ed.2d 561, 565-66 (1963)). Thus, we must consider whether Milner's conduct clearly falls within the proscription of the statute. Milner complains that he had no way of knowing that his vague reference to the Oklahoma City bombing could be construed (1) as a threat, and (2) as referring to the use of an explosive. He points out the statute does not define the terms threaten and explosive device. Despite the lack of an express definition, a statute is not unconstitutionally vague if the meaning of the words used can be fairly ascertained by reference to their ordinary and usual meaning, the dictionary, similar statutes, the common law, or previous judicial determinations. Osmundson, 546 N.W.2d at 909; accord Hunter, 550 N.W.2d at 465 (A statutory term provides fair warning if the meaning of the word `is to be fairly ascertainable by reference to similar statutes, prior judicial determinations, reference to the dictionary, or if the questioned words have a common and generally accepted meaning.') (quoting State v. Kueny, 215 N.W.2d 215, 217 (Iowa 1974)). Section 712.8 satisfies this requirement of definiteness. As discussed above, the terms threaten and explosive device as used in section 712.8 have their ordinary and common meanings. The dictionary, our prior cases and similar statutes make these meanings clear. When the common meaning of the words used in section 712.8 are applied to Milner's conduct, it is obvious his statements fall within the prohibitions of the statute. As we pointed out earlier, Milner's statements went beyond a casual, isolated, and obscure reference to the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. Considering his statements in the context in which they were made, a reasonable person would understand that Milner was threatening to blow up the DES building with a truck bomb, an explosive device. See Bellrichard, 994 F.2d at 1321 (When determining whether an alleged threat falls outside the realm of protected speech, it is important to focus on the context of the expression.); Smith, 532 So.2d at 53 (stating court should examine the totality of the circumstances to distinguish true threats from crude hyperbole). Milner's statements fell squarely within the statute's target of threats to use an explosive device and consequently, he cannot credibly claim he had no notice that his conduct was within the proscription of section 712.8. See Osmundson, 546 N.W.2d at 910 (holding dictionary definitions and commonly understood meaning of statutory language provide[d] guidance to ordinary citizens and fair notice of what actions are proscribed). Similarly, law enforcement authorities would find adequate guidance in the statutory language to easily conclude that Milner's statements fell within the statute's prohibitions. For these reasons, section 712.8 is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Milner's conduct. See Melugin, 38 F.3d at 1486 (holding threat statute not vague where defendant's statement fell squarely within the `hard core of cases to which the ordinary person would doubtlessly know the statute unquestionably applies') (quoting Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 9 (Alaska 1974)); Masson, 320 F.Supp. at 673 (holding threat statute was not vague); Thomas, 574 S.W.2d at 909 (same).