Opinion ID: 2508648
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the First Amendment exception

Text: Finally, the ordinance also excepts from prosecution minors who are engaged in protected First Amendment activity, such as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, or the right of assembly. [41] The plaintiffs claim that the First Amendment exception is vague. They argue that there is no way for a minor or a police officer to determine what activities are protected; therefore, the ordinance fails to put the public on notice as to what activities are prohibited. This vagueness, they argue, renders the exception meaningless unless both the officer and the minor are constitutional scholars. The exception is also meaningless, they claim, as it merely restates the obvious, i.e., that the law cannot bar constitutionally protected activities. They argue that, because the exception fails to state what those activities are, it allows rights to be infringed while the matter is sorted out in court. We reject these claims. In Ramos ex rel. Ramos v. Town of Vernon, [42] a similar First Amendment exception was upheld, even though it lacked examples of protected activity [43] such as are included in the ordinance at issue in this case. [44] The Ramos court stated that [t]he basic protections of the First Amendment are ones that ordinary citizens know and comprehend. Thus, this exception provides citizens with sufficient notice of the type of activity that falls within the exception. [45] And, as the Fourth Circuit found in Schleifer ex rel. Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville: [46] The First Amendment exception provides adequate notice to citizens. It is perfectly clear that core First Amendment activities such as political protest and religious worship after midnight would be protected. It is equally clear that rollerblading would not. Between these poles may lie marginal cases, which can be taken as they come. [47] We conclude that, on its face, the ordinance does not violate the First Amendment. In so holding, we do not close the door to a future argument that the ordinance as applied in specific circumstances may violate an individual's rights under the First Amendment.