Document: 414 U.S. 14 94 S.Ct. 187 38 L.Ed.2d 170 Edward NORWELLv.CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO. No. 72—1366. Nov. 5, 1973. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner Norwell, on a plea of not guilty, was convicted violation Cincinnati's disorderly conduct ordinance. The charge that petitioner 'did unlawfully and wilfully himself in manner, with intent to annoy some person.' judgment conviction affirmed by the Ohio Court Appeals. Further appeal Supreme dismissed court sua sponte 'for reason no substantial constitutional question exists herein.' 2 We are persuaded ordinance, as applied this facts his case, operated punish constitutionally protected speech. therefore grant certiorari reverse. 3 § 901—D4 city's Municipal Code, reads: 4 'No person shall or herself noisy, boisterous, rude, insulting other abuse any . ..' 5 Petitioner, 69 years age an immigrant 20 ago, is employed son who manages part owner 'pony keg,' small package liquor store. works at pony keg every evening helps 'because it very dangerous.' There have been break-ins store several occasions former killed there. 6 On Christmas night, 1971, closed about 10:30. drove home, but 'wanted take walk get home 11:00 hear news.' Down street he approached Officer Johnson, had notified 'suspicious man' neighborhood keg. Johnson testified asked him if lived area. looked him, 'and then turned around walked away.' officer twice attempted stop each time threw off arm protested, 'I don't tell you people anything.' He did run. placed under arrest for conduct. said 'push man approximately half block into police car. didn't understand why being arrested.' 7 'was far from keg' when up car called out something which understand. 8 'He told me something, I couldn't .. said—I 'What do want me?' said, 'Why street?' am walking street.' After then, 'Where going?' go home.' ask anything. continued walk.' 9 pursued grabbed him. testified, resist because concerned my health life.' indication record physical act pushing officer's precipitated supported conviction. Had so, one could argue, perhaps, Mr. Norwell might properly charged statute ordinance made illegal interfere performance duty. That, however, case. 'didn't resisting think warranted cause,' arrested 'being loud boisterous,' '(h)e annoying me.' municipal judge found 'hostile' officer. 'I'm sure (the officer) feeling against man, time, liberty say.' proceeded find 'guilty annoy' fined $10 costs so noisy.' 10 Upon record, we convinced merely verbally negatively protested Johnson's treatment Surely, be punished nonprovocatively voicing objection what obviously felt highly questionable detention Regardless motivation may behind expression clear there abusive language fighting words. If been, would different See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 568, 62 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942). 11 petition granted. reversed.

Category: 2