Document: 397 U.S. 564 90 S.Ct. 1312 25 L.Ed.2d 570 Donald BACHELLAR et al., Petitioners,v.State of MARYLAND. No. 729. Argued March 2, 1970. Decided April 20, Anthony G. Amsterdam, Stanford, Cal., for petitioners. H. Edgar Lentz, Baltimore, Md., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 A jury in Baltimore City Criminal Court convicted petitioners violating Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, § 123 (1967 Repl. Vol.),1 which prohibits 'acting a disorderly manner to disturbance public peace, upon any street * (Maryland) city *.'2 The prosecution arose out demonstration protesting Vietnam war was staged between 3 and shortly after 5 o'clock on afternoon 28, 1966, front United States Army recruiting station located downtown street. Maryland Special Appeals rejected petitioners' contention that their conduct constitutionally protected under First Fourteenth Amendments affirmed convictions. Md.App. 626, 240 A.2d 623 (1968). denied certiorari an unreported order. We granted certiorari, 396 816, 109, 24 68 (1969). reverse. 2 trial judge instructed there were alternative grounds might be found guilty 123. charged, first, verdict returned if had engaged 'the doing or saving both offends, disturbs, incites tends incite number people gathered same area.' also told '(a) refusal obey policeman's command move when not do so may endanger amount conduct.'3 So instructed, general against each Since argue protected, we have examined record ourselves. When 'a claim right is involved, it 'remains our duty make independent examination whole record." Cox v. Louisiana (I), 379 536, 545 n. 8, 85 453, 13 471 (1965). shall discuss first factual situation existed until before demonstration, since pattern events changed time. There agreement regarding nature during initial period. 4 law enforcement authorities advance notice dozen more police officers some marshals hand approximately 15 protesters began peacefully march circle sidewalk station. marchers carried signs bearing such legends as: 'Peasant Emancipation, Not Escalation,' 'Make Love War,' 'Stop Name Love,' 'Why are Viet Nam?' increased 30 40 ended. crowd onlookers nearby across From time other left distributed leaflets among talked persons crowd. lieutenant charge detail testified he 'overheard' debate with members about Cong situation,' few resented protest; '(o)ne particular one objected very much receiving circular.' However, did think constituted peace. He '(a)s long as peace disturbed I wasn't anything it.' Clearly wording placards within small class 'fighting words' that, Chaplinsky New Hampshire, 315 568, 574, 62 766, 770, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942), 'likely provoke average person retaliation, thereby cause breach peace,' nor evidence demonstrators' remarks words.' Any shock effect caused by placards, peaceful marching must attributed content ideas being expressed, onlookers' dislike demonstrations means expressing dissent. But '(i)t firmly settled Constitution expression prohibited merely because themselves offensive hearers,' Street York, 394 576, 592, 89 1354, 1366, 22 572 (1969); see supra; Edwards South Carolina, 372 229, 83 680, 9 697 (1963); Terminiello Chicago, 337 1, 69 894, 93 1131 (1949), simply bystanders object orderly demonstrations. Plainly nothing occurred this period could ground conviction Indeed, State makes no violated then. 6 turn now o'clock. half past enter they attempted persuade sergeant permit them display antiwar materials its window fronting sidewalk. regulations forbade him grant permission. six thereupon sit-in chairs couch station.4 minutes asked leave, wanted close day. refused, called who present remove them. After deputizing several help, undertook eject petitioners.5 7 irreconcilable conflict what next occurred. prosecution's witnesses 'escorted' outside, sat lay down, 'blocking free passage sidewalk.' stated then took over three times ordered get up leave. remained sitting lying picked bodily removed patrol wagon. In sharp contrast, defense said petitioner thrown door landed his back, positioned block completely, given away; contrary, struggled feet, held down into clear, however, while sidewalk, sing 'We Shall Overcome' surrounded demonstrators carrying placards. Thus, obvious participants even expulsion from station.6 50—150 people, including demonstrators, area 8 reaction these substantially earlier afternoon. added only two uniformed marines appeared angry 'were debating back forth Bomb Hanoi different things protect wouldn't leave.' Earlier too, taken exception protest war. On evidence, light instructions judge, rested grounds. jurors refused 'to (might endangered) peace.' Or relied finding deliberately obstructed thus offending, disturbing, inciting bystanders.7 credited testimony there, yet still anti-Vietnam amounted saying record, find been advocated unpopular ideas. would violate Constitution, set aside 10 Stromberg California, 283 359, 51 532, 75 1117 (1931), controlling authority. appellant charged California statute marking offense publicly red flag (a) 'as sign, symbol emblem opposition organized government,' (b) invitation stimulus anarchistic action,' (c) aid propaganda seditious character.' Id., at 361, S.Ct., 533. This clause unconstitutional possibly punishing government legal constitutional limitations. though statutory severable constitutional, reversed, 'did specify rested. As purposes statute, respect them, independently considered, impossible say obtained. If clauses, state court has separable, invalid, cannot determined clause. (T)he necessary conclusion case sent clauses question invalid Federal upheld.' U.S., 368, 535. See Williams North 317 287, 63 207, 87 279 (1942); Yates States, 354 298, 77 1064, 1356 (1957); supra. 11 believed State's convictions intent fully blocking along it, commands stop obstructing on. See, e.g., supra, 554—555, 464—465; Shuttlesworth Birmingham, 382 87, 90—91, 211, 213—214, 176 It say, either basis verdict. far can tell, equally likely resulted 'merely (petitioners' views were) hearers.' 1366. ground, aside. 12 judgment reversed remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. Judgment remanded. de novo appeal Municipal Baltimore. sentenced 60 days jail $50 fine. amended 1968 but without change operative language involved case. Md.Ann. Code, 123(c) (Supp.1969). Both elements instruction based Appeals' construction Drews Maryland, 224 Md. 186, 192, 167 341, 343—344 (1961), vacated grounds, 378 547, 84 1900, 1032 (1964), reaffirmed remand, 236 349, 204 64 dismissed cert. denied, 381 421, 1576, 14 693 'that area. affect quiet witness provoked resentment it. conduct.' request disregard anger disagreement expressed Vietnam. For example, instruct 'if threat arising actions defendants others made defendants' concerning Nam, American involvement you acquit defendants. And reasonable doubt whether those occasioned rather than staying street, defendants.' Petitioners' issue case, prosecute place. local deputized powers extend federally operated indicated removal five minutes. 20 states brief, 41—42, '(o)bstructing circumstances constituting violation Article 121 passage.' Had wished ensure obstruction question, prosecuted 121, specifically punishes '(a)ny wilfully obstruct hinder passing highway *.'

Category: 2