Document: 378 U.S. 146 84 S.Ct. 1734 12 L.Ed.2d 766 Charles F. BARR et al., Petitioners,v.CITY OF COLUMBIA. No. 9. Argued Oct. 14 and 15, 1963. Decided June 22, 1964. Jack Greenberg, New York City, Matthew Perry, Columbia, S.C., Constance B. Motley, for petitioners. David W. Robinson, II, John Sholenberger, respondent. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Mr. Justice BLACK, delivered opinion 1 Like Bouie v. City 347, 1697, this case involves a 'sit-in' demonstration in South Carolina, one at Taylor Street Pharmacy. Negroes whites alike are invited to come buy goods all store's departments, but lunch counter, while it sells food take out, has policy refusing let them sit there eat. Petitioners, five Negro college students, entered store after some had made purchases front part proceeded counter rear, where they sat down waited service. The manager arranged day before police arrest any demonstrators who might refuse being requested do so. As result, three officers were waiting when petitioners arrived. announced that he would not serve have leave; then, request officers, went with officer each petitioner asked individually leave. When remained seated arrested charged criminal trespass1 breach peace.2 Rec rder's Court convicted on both charges, County affirmed an unreported opinion, Supreme Carolina also affirmed. 239 S.C. 395, 123 S.E.2d 521. Bouie, supra, these claim their convictions violate Due Process Equal Protection Clauses Fourteenth Amendment, we granted certiorari. 374 804, 83 1690, 10 1029. 2 We consider first question whether petitioners' peace constitutionally valid. Apart from fact having been leave, is complete utter lack evidence, no suggestion opinions courts below, did anything disorderly or other than politely ask Petitioners argue either breach-of-peace statute applied conduct was unconstitutionally vague failure give fair warning, cf. Lanzetta Jersey, 306 451, 59 618, L.Ed. 888, evidence support violation statute, Thompson Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 4 654. city replies that, because refused pass objections conviction ground exceptions taken below 'too general be considered,'3 precluded considering constitutional objections. point read: 3 '1. erred hold failed prove prima facie case. '2. establish corpus delicti.' 5 cannot accept city's argument, since Columbia 570, 124 332, rev'd another point, 1697 decided only few weeks present case, State identical two exceptions, relying reversed insufficiency peaceful quiet sit-in demonstrator charge resisting arrest. In cases two-month period preceding decision likewise considered same enough raise sufficiency those cases, one, interfering officer.4 often pointed out state procedural requirements which strictly regularly followed deprive us right review. See, e.g., N.A.A.C.P. Alabama ex rel. Flowers, 377 288, 1302; Shuttlesworth Birmingham, 376 339, 795, 11 L.Ed.2 766; Wright Georgia, 373, 284, 1240, 349; Patterson, 357 449, 78 1163, 1488. conclude adequate barring our review convictions. 6 Turning merits, refers justify here, possibly relevant able find recrod, mere presence tended move onlookers commit acts violence. above, undisputed record polite, quiet, time left. And concedes, 'it said has, upon proper presentation briefing, held clearly within prohibitions statutes involved.' Accordingly, unwilling assume hard believe if passed point5 could punished trespass well, based single ordered further, frequent occasions under Amendment individuals hostile onlookers, reluctant covers here. Cf. Henry Rock Hill, 776, 1042, 79; supra; Edwards 372 229, 680, 9 697; Louisiana, 370 154, 82 1188, 8 395; Garner 368 157, 248, 7 207; Terminiello Chicago, 337 1, 69 894, 93 1131. Since convictions, should stand. 654.6 judgments remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. It so ordered. Reversed remanded. PER CURIAM. With respect reasons stated 1697. DOUGLAS reverse his Bell Maryland, 242, 1823. GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, would, joining Court, concurring MR. GOLDBERG 286, 1847. 13 HARLAN r. WHITE join, dissenting reversal 363, 1708, 318, 1864, belief responded call storekeeper people remaining over protest constitute 'state action' meaning Amendment. A convinces here nothing holding acting capacity except violated property Petitioners' relating vagueness alleged absence rejected Bouie. therefore Section 16—386, Code Laws 1952 (1960 Supp.). 15—909, 1952, provides: 'Disorderly conduct, etc.—The mayor intendant alderman, councilman warden town may, person, arrest, may authorize require marshal constable especially appointed purpose person who, corporate limits such town, engaged peace, riotous open obscenity, public drunkenness grossly indecent dangerous citizens them. Upon council, committed guardhouse council authorized county jail chaingang term exceeding thirty days fined hundred dollars; provided, section shall construed prevent trial jury.' 399, S.E.2d, 523. Charleston Mitchell, 376, 512, 551, 1901. See Edwards, 247, sub nom. Greenville Peterson, 298, 122 826, 373 244, 1133, 323 (allegation delicti only). cites supports its position issue. quotes, involve otherwise persuasive. reach contention void doctrine 888.

Category: 1