Document: 415 U.S. 130 94 S.Ct. 970 39 L.Ed.2d 214 Mallie LEWIS, Appellant,v.CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. No. 72—6156. Argued Dec. 10, 1973. Decided Feb. 20, 1974. Syllabus On remand from this Court for reconsideration in light of Gooding v. Wilson, 405 518, 92 1103, 31 408, appellant's conviction violating a New Orleans ordinance making it unlawful 'to curse or revile to use obscene opprobrious language toward with reference to' police officer while performance his duties was again sustained by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which did not narrow refine words although stating that limited 'fighting words' uttered specific persons at time. Held: The ordinance, as thus construed, is susceptible application protected speech, and therefore overbroad violation First Fourteenth Amendments facially invalid. plainly has broader sweep than constitutional definition being 'which their very utterance inflict injury tend incite an immediate breach peace,' Chaplinsky Hampshire, 315 568, 572, 62 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031; supra, U.S., 523, S.Ct., 1106, since, least, 'opprobrious language' embraces do fall under definition, word 'opprobrious' embracing 'conveying intended convey disgrace,' id., 525, 1107. It immaterial whether appellant used might be punishable properly ordinance. Pp. 131-134. 263 La. 809, 269 So.2d 450, reversed remanded. John Wilson Reed, Orleans, La., appellant. Servando C. Garcia, III, appellee. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Upon Court's case 408 (1972), pursuant our remand, 913, 2499, 33 321 court, three judges dissenting, upon charge addressing spoken Ordinance 828 M.C.S. § 49-7, 450 (1972).1 We noted probable jurisdiction, 412 926, 93 2756, 153 (1973), we reverse. hold construed Section 49-7 provides: 2 'It shall peace any person wantonly member city actual duty.' 3 on these words, but took them they stood: 'The proscriptions are specific—wantonly cursing, reviling, using language.' 827, 456. Nonetheless, court position that, written, 'it (§ 49-7) narrowed time . ..' Id., 826, So.2d, But announced 1031 (1942), reaffirmed 522, namely, 'those (words) peace.' That contemplated reach evident its emphasis city's justification regulation 'the conduct towards duty .. Permitting cursing reviling would unreasonable basically incompatible officer's activities place where such performed.' 825, 456.2 4 At proscription language,' 'by conclusion Georgia statute held unconstitutional found common dictionary term embraced disgrace' same compelled find nothing makes meaningful attempt limit define—as Gooding—'opprobrious,' indeed other 49-7. In circumstance reaffirm holding 520-521, 1105, respect: 5 matters (appellant) have been constitutionally prohibited narrowly precisely drawn statute. least when statutes regulate proscribe speech "no readily apparent construction suggests itself vehicle rehabilitating single prosecution," transcendent value all society expression deemed justify allowing 'attacks overly broad no requirement attack demonstrate own could regulated requisite specificity' This necessary because whose may well refrain exercising rights fear criminal sanctions provided expression.' 6 sum, punishes only words. can withstand facial constitutionality if, authoritatively vulgar offensive, Amendments. Cohen California, 403 15, 18-22, 91 1780, 1784, 1787, 29 284 (1971); Terminiello Chicago, 337 1, 4-5, 69 894, 895-896, 1131 (1949); 520, 1105. Since section 7 judgment remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 8 Reversed 9 POWELL, concurring result. 10 I previously concurred case, 82 (1942). Pursuant order, now decision construing agree today 'did (of ordinance), stood.' Ante 132. conclusory language, create per se rule. Whenever 'obscene 'toward duty,' constitutes hence without regard facts circumstances particular case. As so overbroad. 11 Quite apart ambiguity inherent 'oppobrious,' words,' depending utterance. unlikely, example, said here precipitated physical confrontation between middle-aged woman who spoke presence were uttered. conveyed anger frustration provoking violent reaction officer. Moreover, my previous concurrence, trained reasonably expected 'exercise higher degree restraint' average citizen, less likely respond belligerently words.' 2499. See Model Penal Code 250.1, Comment (Tent. Draft 13, 1961). 12 confers virtually unrestrained power arrest violation. Many arrests made 'one-on-one' situations witnesses arresting charged. All required accept testimony had him duties.* Indeed, need addressed directly since violated even if objectionable 'with police.' 13 Contrary argument, unlikely limiting ordinance's genuine full adequate duties. more street crimes (i.e., robbery, assault, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest), usually unnecessary also charged serious offense present type tends invoked there valid basis suspicious person. opportunity abuse, especially received open-ended interpretation, self-evident. 14 concur 15 BLACKMUN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting. Holmes aptly observed: 16 'All declare themselves absolute logical extreme.' Hudson County Water Co. McCarter, 209 349, 355, 28 529, 531, 52 (1908). 17 extreme allow ourselves manipulated theory extended end logic exemplified blood brother two years ago, (1972). 'overbreadth' 'vagueness' doctrines, applied quietly steadily worked way into Amendment parlance much substantive due process 'old Court' 20's 30's. These doctrines indiscriminately nature question, possible effect importance relation exposition ideas, purported asserted community interest preventing speech. And happenstance each relegated footnote status, conveniently distant disturbing focus. compulsion doctrine reduces function parsing context imaginary events. result merely applying limitations, Framers, and, indeed, history adjudication indicates, invalidating state wholesale lots 'conceivably apply others utter 535, 1112 (dissenting opinion). 18 elliptical analysis instructive. Gooding, officers attempting restore public access building met resistance loud, personal abuse: "White son bitch, I'll kill you," "You choke you death," ever put your hands me again, cut pieces." defendant convicted 'who shall, provocation, another, abusive tending cause guilty misdemeanor.' seized definitions decisions turn century. concluded swept beyond bounds limitation despite fact tracked describe subject some regulation, demonstration reason how significant potential sweeping suppress deter important speech.' 1109 (Burger, J., dissenting). 19 her husband stopped Appellant's respective versions incident conflicting, municipal judge credited testimony. finding, course, record, binding us. testified he waiting produce driver's license, came out truck 'and started yelling screaming something she wanted know was. 'lady don't am talking you. man go sit truck.' She 'you god damn m. f. police—I going Giarrusso (the superintendent) see about this.' jail—you arrest.' 'you're taking jail' get back cab caught up getting cab. attempted take fighting swinging arms.' App. 8. A fight ensued subdued help another Appellant police. both charges appealed 20 construe meaning ordinance.1 after reviewing applicable precedents, including specifically 'not offensive speech; time; unconstitutional. Any reasonable knows what definitely does within forms derogatory 826-827, 456 (emphasis original). 21 Again, setting one side, selectively dissents wording opinion, eyes "opprobrious," refers us treatment "opprobrious" observes '§ Chaplinsky,' ante, 132, concludes 'we Gooding—' opprobrious,' 49-7.' Ante, 133. And, struck down discussion significantly affect reasons why State's harmonious administration laws should prevail over lone, individual claim others. cannot reconcile says said. believe Brethren majority seek here, just convinced sought Gooding. 22 Jackson warned dangers kind analysis: 23 'But suppose council revision. issue before done deprived right. law review, abstract, academic questions raise doubtful case.' Saia York, 334 558, 571, 68 1148, 1155, 1574 (1948) 24 Overbreadth vagueness field indicate, become result-oriented rubberstamps attuned easy imagined self-assurance 'one man's vulgarity another's lyric.' 25, 1788, (1971). danger apparent. Inherent standard judicial-legislative confrontation. frequent intervention, late unrestrained, usurp prerogative democratic government. Instead 'council revision.' If adheres will acceptable unless parrots opinions. 25 surely Framers function. adhere Murphy, known champion freedoms, wrote unanimous bench Chaplinsky, 571-572, 769: 26 'Allowing broadest scope purpose Amendment, understood right free times circumstances. There certain well-defined classes prevention punishment never thought Constitutional problem. include lewd obscene, profane, libelous, insulting 'fighting' words—those peace. observed utterances essential part slight social step truth benefit derived clearly outweighed order morality. 'Resort epithets abuse proper sense communication information safeguarded Constitution, act question instrument.' Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 309—310, 60 900, 84 1213.' (Footnotes omitted.) 27 Mrs. Lewis 'plainly' insulting, fighting. Louisiana's highest court. moreover, poses threat reflects legitimate laws. Police day perhaps must thick skinned prepared wanton, high-velocity, verbal often away violence passioned reaction, matter self-disciplined individuals involved. arrested victim overbearance, officer, anticipate who, like rest us, fallibly human, legislatures enacted challenged serve restrict 'of (it) morality.' 769.2 stay hand yield absolutes doctrine. alternative affirmance, dissent. January 3, 1970, pickup following patrol car young station arrest. An Officer Berner intercepted truck. left according testimony, asked license. Words exchanged 49—7. parties' sharp contradiction. 'started said, m.f. Superintendent Police) this." Berner's first "let damned show can't follow streets.' After got 'Officer want son.' He woman. Get black ass something." 27. denied 'any profanity officer.' 37. Municipal Judge disbelieved husband. occasion reached address conflict view framers defined punished exercise restraint citizen. (Tent.Draft * particularly direct what,' illustrate possibility abuse. 131 n. 1. 'Section Cursing, etc., prohibited. suggestion open selective enforcement strike down. Courts capable stemming statutes. See, e.g., Norwell City Cincinnati, 414 14, 187, 38 170 (1973). Questions credibility, resolved courts centuries so-called modern age requires different treatment.

Category: 2