Opinion ID: 165582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Time, Place, Manner

Text: 45 In his last argument, Mr. Ward contends that section 76-3-203.3 is not a permissible time, place, or manner restriction. Mr. Ward considers each of the four factors of the time, place, or manner test — as stated in Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989) — and argues that section 76-3-203.3 fails each factor. We reject this argument because we conclude that the First Amendment's time, place, or manner doctrine is not applicable to this case. 46 We apply the time, place, and manner doctrine to evaluate whether restrictions placed on expression in public fora violate the First Amendment. See First Unitarian Church, 308 F.3d at 1132 (noting that, [a]s with any public forum, the City may enact reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions); Wells v. City and County of Denver, 257 F.3d 1132, 1147 (10th Cir.2001) (A content-neutral restriction in a traditional or designated public forum is subject to review as a regulation on the time, place, and manner of speech.). This doctrine allows the government to place restrictions on expression so long as it do[es] not regulate what is said, but merely [regulates] such matters as when, where, and how loud.  Rodney A. Smolla, 1 Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 8.36 (2004). 47 We have previously given examples of time, place, or manner restrictions, including requiring that street demonstrations occur at times other than rush hour, that billboards be located away from scenic highways, or that sound trucks not exceed a certain decibel level. Heideman v. South Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1192 (10th Cir.2003). In Heideman, we further noted that time, place, and manner restrictions are conceptually different from generally applicable regulations of both non-expressive and expressive conduct. Id. at 1193. 48 Section 76-3-203.3 is aimed at conduct; it does not impose a time, place, or manner restriction on expression. Although we recognize that a clear line cannot always be drawn between statutes regulating speech and statutes regulating conduct, we have previously noted that statutes regulating conduct are not properly analyzed under the time, place, or manner doctrine. Heideman, 348 F.3d at 1192 — 93. Because section 76-3-203.3 applies to both expressive and non-expressive conduct, and is not a restriction on the methods in which one may express his views, the time, place, or manner doctrine is not applicable.