Document: 382 U.S. 87 86 S.Ct. 211 15 L.Ed.2d 176 Fred L. SHUTTLESWORTH, Petitioner,v.CITY OF BIRMINGHAM. No. 5. Argued Oct. 11, 1965. Decided Nov. 15, James M. Nabrit, III, New York City, for petitioner. Earl McBee, Birmingham, Ala., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner was brought to trial in Circuit Court Jefferson County, Alabama, upon a complaint charging him with violating two sections General Code City Alabama.1 After without jury, court found 'guilty as charged Complaint,' and imposed sentence imprisonment 180 days at hard labor an additional 61 default $100 fine costs. judgment conviction affirmed by Alabama Appeals, 42 Ala.App. 296, 161 So.2d 796, Supreme declined review. 276 Ala. 707, 799. We granted certiorari consider petitioner's claim that under Fourteenth Amendment United States Constitution his cannot stand. 380 905, 85 881, 13 793. 2 ordinances which Shuttles-worth are §§ 1142 1231 Birmingham Code. relevant paragraph provides: 'It shall be unlawful any person or number persons so stand, loiter walk street sidewalk city obstruct free passage over, on along said sidewalk. It also stand after having been requested police officer move on.' Section refuse fail comply lawful order, signal direction officer.' counts were framed words these ordinances.2 3 evidence conflict, but prosecution's version facts can briefly summarized. On April 4, 1962, about 10:30 a.m., Patrolman Byars Police Department observed Shuttlesworth standing 10 12 companions outside department store near intersection 2d Ave. 19th St. Birmingham. observing group minute so, walked up 'told them they would have clear not it pedestrians.' some, all, began disperse, repeated this request twice. In response second request, said, 'You mean say we can't here sidewalk?' third he replied, 'Do you tell me front store?' By time everybody had begun away, told arrest. then responded, 'Well, I will go into store,' entrance adjacent store. followed took custody just inside store's entrance.3 I. 4 its face, § sets out separate disjunctive offenses. makes offense 'so * sidewalk.' 'also (Emphasis added.) first count case, tracking ordinance, offenses alternative.4 5 Literally read, therefore, part ordinance says may public only whim city. constitutional vice broad provision needs no demonstration.5 'does provide government clearly defined laws, rather moment-to-moment opinions policeman beat.' Cox v. State Louisiana, 379 536, 559, 579, 453, 466, 469, 476, 471, 487 (separate MR. JUSTICE BLACK). Instinct ever-present potential arbitrarily suppressing First liberties, kind law bears hallmark state.6 6 matter is one need exhaustively pursued, however, because, respondent correctly points out, Appeals has read literally, given explicitly narrowed construction. ruled, 'is directed obstructing manner accused stands, loiters walks thereupon. Our decisions make mere refusal officer's requesting loitering should do enough support offense. (T)here must showing accused's blocking *.' Middlebrooks 525, 527, 170 424, 426. 7 thus authoritatively ruled applies when who loiters, refuses obey on. our duty, course, accept state judicial construction ordinance. Winters People York, 333 507, 68 665, 92 L.Ed. 840; Burnison, 339 87, 70 503, 94 675; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. Board Railroad Comm'rs, 332 495, 167, 99. As construed, unconstitutional though requires great feat imagination envisage situations such might unconstitutionally applied. 8 present limiting until decision Middlebrooks, supra, years case.7 stated applied affirming Shuttlesworth's conviction, nowhere explicit event, case guidance from appellate meaning 9 made findings fact rendered opinion. For all appears, guilty applying literal—and unconstitutional—terms Upon before him, judge finder easily determined created obstruction, subsequently moved alternatively himself simply disobeyed Byars' instruction either circumstance literal terms apply; neither applicable now construed Appeals. Because unable courts did II. find complaint, violation Code, constitutionally invalid completely distinct reason. That criminal 'to Like provisions discussed above, evoke doubts utmost gravity. But confined relatively narrow scope. reversing codefendant, 1231: 'This section appears chapter regulating vehicular traffic, provides enforcement orders officers directing traffic.' Phifer 282, 285, 160 898, 901.8 11 record contains whatever traffic Whatever other generally assigned duties been,9 testified unambiguously on, 'clear pedestrians.'10 Five ago decided Thompson Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 654. There reversed man Kentucky, disorderly conduct. proposition stands simple clear. nothing concepts relating weight sufficiency particular case. goes, rather, most basic due process law. Its application Thompson's turned, BLACK pointed 'not evidence, whether rests all.' U.S., 625. there 'no convictions,' held 'a convict punish guilt.' 206, 629. See Garner 368 157, 82 248, 207. No more respect Alabama. Quite simply, in, around vehicle arrested. He pedestrian. Officer issue course because traffic. guilt. 14 reasons remanded proceedings inconsistent Reversed remanded. 16 DOUGLAS, concurring. 17 join Part II Court's reverse Count somewhat different power municipality certainly ample deal conditions streets—pedestrian well vehicular. So could doubt if member could, pursuant narrowly drawn asked and, refused, arrested obstruction. testimony dissolved warned police, save petitioner.* At arrest longer 'obstruct sidewalks.' apply continues block warning move. 'obstructing' here, unless presence itself enough. Failure acting unlawfully, crime country where freedom locomotion (Edwards California, 314 160, 62 164, 119) honored. think within 654, sustain hence outright. 18 APPENDIX TO OPINION DOUGLAS. 19 Robert Byars, arrest, cross-examination follows: 20 'Q. How many it? 21 'A. Some ten twelve. 22 Were colored white people, altogether what? 23 didn't pay notice race. 24 You stood half went cleared intersection? 25 26 Was big crowd blocked? south-north cross free, defendants walk, west assuming going south, east-west all? Now, blocking? 27 They 28 crowd? 29 That's right, including defendant. 30 placed X. what interested now, blocking, they? 31 'Mr. Walker: object. being blocked; moving 32 Are assembling something? Who Where here? 33 causing people walking east them. 34 street? 35 Along 2nd Avenue. 36 way (indicating)? 37 right. 38 Avenue them? 39 true. 40 While there? 41 And half? 43 required Did speak directly Defendant Shuttlesworth? 44 spoke assembled there. 45 correct? 46 Not 47 Well, arrest? 48 Except Shuttlesworth. 49 Nobody 50 standing; else motion except Shuttlesworth, never moved. 51 talking during time? 52 statement occasions informed three occasions. 53 ask wanted move? 54 55 56 not. 57 anybody 58 time.' (R. 27—28.) 59 C. W. Hallman, above called over direct examination 60 About how time, know? five six. less. What happened then, anything? 63 All dispersed 64 that? 65 arrest.' 59—60.) BRENNAN, 66 my understanding holding (a) passage, (b) (c) thereafter street. saves statute challenge overly broad. Moreover, delimits 'the sort 'hard-core' conduct obviously prohibited construction,' Dombrowski Pfister, 479, 491—492, 1116, 1124, 22, legitimately occurring 67 FORTAS, whom Chief joins, agree set aside. am concerned lest considered indicating convicted presented. Any violate guaranties. now. 69 does constitutionality conviction. imply put 1142, eliminated. Federal forbids record, regardless validity involved. that, convicted, face. rational basis retried choose vigorously protect sidewalks Civil rights leaders, like persons, subject it. Their calling carries immunity. cause confers privilege break disregard 71 possible valid Constitution. even plastic surgery Alabama's 1964. 424.1 A revision formula change facts; those permit jail actions 1962. 72 Taking facts, 8, 122 a.m. accosted patrolman Street occupied one-half conversing among themselves. suggestion disorder deliberate obstruction pedestrian command patrolman, commenced away. command, him. resistance. entire incident less than four minutes, arrival friends corner 73 this, tried, sentenced spend year $100. 74 view, justified Prior situation small occupying engaged orderly conversation. Promptly disperse remained. He, alone, blocked His rhetorical questions irritated patrolman; policeman's lot happy one—and certainly, context, rise magnitude against laws If confine oneself surface general alarm order. use hazardous beyond measure. 75 fiction. facade narrower, disagreeable, truth. Negroes 'selective buying campaign'—an attempted boycott—of Birmingham's stores purpose protesting discrimination Negroes.3 participated testified, 'notorious' field civil Birmingham.4 76 view net effect inescapable. tense racial conflict This explain adds lawfulness. circumstances 'blocking passage' sidewalk, So.2d, 426, culpably refused order remained justify attempt would, de novo appeal Recorder's 'Count One 'Comes municipal corporation, complains F. twelve months beginning prosecution jurisdiction thereof, at, to-wit: Avenue, North, while contrary 1944, amended Ordinance Number 1436—F. Two officer, Birmingham.' references so-called campaign' time. showing, connection between campaign morning note 2, supra. Thornhill 310 88, 97, 736, 741, 84 1093; N.A.A.C.P. Button, 371 415, 433, 435, 83 328, 338, 339, 405; Amsterdam, Note, Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine Court, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67, 75—81, 96—104 (1960). Cf. Smith 361 147, 151, 215, 217, 205; Baggett Bullitt, 377 360, 371, 1316, 1322, 377. Lovell Griffin, 303 444, 451, 666, 668, 949; Kunz 340 290, 293, 312, 314, 95 280; Schneider Jersey, 308 163—164, 146, 151—152, 155. place October November 1963. 424. adumbrated same day. 467, 168 35. Shelton 165 912, defendant get middle closed private vehicles '(p)olice cars fire engines used quiet crowd.' question 'utility officer,' 'in charge movement 3rd blocks east, west, north south direction.' conceded regularly placed' occurred, 'nothing there.' shows Hallman. observe corners your position corner, not? try to. Had seen saw Byars? see attention impression waiting light change? couldn't answer dont's know their mind. formed them, right? Just assisting When wasn't me. corner. No.' Appendix hereto. herein 'ratio decidendi' earlier. indication itself. Renshaw 40). 17). Testimony 49). color 27, 36). principal arresting recognize picture television. heard frequently arrested, jail. started recess federal publicized.

Category: 2