Legal Document

378 U.S. 347 84 Supreme Court Reporter 1697 12 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 894 Simon BOUIE and Talmadge Judge Neal, Petitioners,v.CITY OF COLUMBIA. Number 10. Argued Oct. 14 15, 1963. Decided June 22, 1964. Jack Greenberg, New York City, Matthew Perry, Columbia, S.C., Mrs. Constance baron Motley, for petitioners. David W. Robinson, II, John Sholenberger, respondent. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion 1 This case arose out a 'sit-in' demonstration at Eckerd's Drug Store in South Caroli a. In addition to lunch counter, maintained several other departments, including those retail drugs, cosmetics, prescriptions. Negroes whites were invited purchase served alike all departments store with exception restaurant department, which was reserved whites. There no evidence that any signs or notices posted indicating would not be department. 2 On March 14, 1960, petitioners, two Negro college students, took seats booth department waited served. No one spoke them approached take their orders food. After they seated, an employee put up chain 'no trespassing' sign attached. Petitioners continued sit quietly booth. The manager then called city police asked come remove arrived twice petitioners leave. They did do so. Assistant Chief Police When petitioner Bouie 'For what?' replied: 'Because it's breach peace * *.' still refused leave, arrested. charged violation § 15—909, Code Laws Carolina, 1952, but convicted. Petitioner also resisting arrest, convicted, conviction reversed State insufficiency evidence. Both criminal trespass 16—386 Carolina 1952 (1960 Cum.Supp.);1 on this charge convictions affirmed over objections based upon Due Process Equal Protection Clauses Fourteenth Amendment. 239 S.C. 570, 124 Eastern Reporter, 2nd 332. We granted certiorari review judgments affirming these convictions. 374 805, 83 1690, 10 1030. 3 reach question presented under Clause, we find merit petitioners' contention Clause reverse ground. 4 claim denied due process law either because statute support charge, see Thompson versus Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 654 failed afford fair warning conduct have now been convicted had made crime. terms define prohibited 'entry lands another after notice from owner tenant prohibiting such entry See note 1, supra. emphasize conceded fact commit conduct; received 'notice entry' before entered (where enter) seated themselves thus argue that, written, want evidenc case. argument is persuasive beside point, its present posture does involve 'as written.' Court, convictions, construed cover only act premises receiving enter, remaining leave.2 Under so construed, it clear there concededly remained counter being contend, however, applying construction affirm case, has punished time committed it, hence violated requirement give prohibits. agree contention. 5 basic principle must makes crime often recognized As said Harriss, 612, 617, 74 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989, 6 'The constitutional definiteness fails person ordinary intelligence his contemplated forbidden statute. underlying man shall held criminally responsible he could reasonably understand proscribed.' 7 Thus struck down state where 'sufficiently explicit inform who are subject what part will render liable penalties.' Connally General Const. Co., 269 385, 391, 46 126, 127, 70 322. cases 'a forbids requires doing vague men common necessarily guess meaning differ application violates first essential law,' ibid., 'No may required peril life, liberty property speculate penal statutes. All entitled informed commands forbids.' Lanzetta Jersey, 306 451, 453, 59 618, 619, 888.3 8 It true cases, typical applications principle, uncertainty statute's prohibition resulted overbroad language itself, concluded 'void vagueness.' instant seems distinguishable, since face admirably narrow precise; applied thrust distinction, produce potentially greater deprivation right sort precise unforeseeably retroactively expanded judi ial construction, than vagueness' situation. overbroad, least gives potential defendant some notice, virtue very characteristic, arise coverage, conduct. precise, lulls into false sense security, giving him reason even suspect clearly outside scope written brought within judicial construction. If Amendment when 'to statutes,' Lanzetta, 'guess (the statute's) application,' Connally, much when, itself revealed until court's decision, afforded opportunity engage speculation committing question. 9 can doubt result statutory unforeseeable retroactive expansion language. Pierce 314 306, 311, 62 237, 239, 'judicial enlargement interpretation war fundamental concept crimes defined appropriate definiteness.' Even statutes concerned, pointed vice enactment cannot 'be cured given placing valid limits statute,' 'the objection vagueness two-fold: inadequate guidance individual whose regulated, triers fact. former retrospectively ruling trial court appellate court, though might future authoritative gloss. *' Freund, Civil Liberties, Vand.L.Rev. 533, 541 (1951). 11 Amsterdam, Note, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67, 73—74, n. 34. view adds 'clarifying gloss' statute, id., 73, making narrower more definite indicates, fortiori unexpectedly broadens precise. Indeed, retroactively, operates precisely like ex post facto law, Article I, 10, Constitution forbids. An 'that action done passing innocent done, criminal; punishes action,' aggravates crime, was, committed.' Calder Bull, Dall. 386, 390, 648.4 legislature barred Ex Post Facto follow achieving same Cf. Smith Cahoon, 283 553, 565, 51 582, 586, 75 1264. existed issue occurred,' Hall, Principles Criminal Law (2d ed. 1960), 58—59, apply bar prohibitions emanating courts well legislatures. 'unexpected indefensible reference expressed prior issue,' effect. Id., 61. 13 involved holding unsupported state-court decision procedure constitute adequate ground preclude Court's federal See, e.g., Wright Georgia, 373 284, 291, 1240, 1245, 349; N.A.A.C.P. Alabama, 357 449, 456—458, 78 1163, 1168 1169, 1488; Barr City 146, 1734. standards decisional consistency applicable judging adequacy applicable, think, determining whether deprive entitles him. both situations, turns status moment past—or, exactly, appearance U.Pa.L.Rev., supra, 74, overrules consistent line procedural decisions effect denying litigant hearing pending thereby deprives 'in primary heard defend (his) substantive right.' Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Sav. company Hill, 281 673, 678, 50 1107. similarly liability past conduct, constitutes Applicable situation statement Brinkerhoff-Faris, '(i)f above stated attained exercise state's legislative power, transgression clause obvious,' none less accomplished judiciary course construing otherwise statute.' 679—680, 454. Applying principles warning, stand rendered By terms, nothing indicate different violate written; entering drugstore knew receive notice. Before store, everything except food there. So far words 'fair warning,' whatever, statute.5 15 Mitchell 2, variance language, slightest decisions. Far equating enter emphasized proof necessary sustain 16—386. Green, 35 266, Southeastern KF135 S6 619 (1892), apparently possession land told Yet prosecution returning later, said, 'under provision our laws, thereon, afterwards enters premises, punishment.' 268, S.E., 620. Cockfield, Rich.Law (S.C.) 53, 55 (1867), quoting (as read) 'Every inclosed uninclosed another, tenant, same, deemed misdemeanor,' 'will permit suppose intended acceptation.' Mays, 24 190 (1885); Tenny, 58 215, 36 555 (1900); Olasov, 133 139, 130 514 (1925). sum, 95 years between 1866 1961 uniformly notice-before-entry requirement, gave indication satisfied 16 notice' includes cite previously simply irrelevant; whatever general field trespass, involving instead civil trespass—which always recognized, particular, quite distinct separate trespass. Shramek Walker, 152 88, 149 331 (1929), damages assault battery storekeeper customer so; defense use reasonable force eject undesirable customer. validity stating 'while lawful, express implied invitation failure depart, request owner, make trespasser justify using him.' 99—100, 336. Williams, 76 135, 56 783 (1907), murder raised victim against whom force, approved judge's instruction another's ejected force. , 785. 17 turned wholly tort principles. For relevance particular general. thing say sued action, criminal. distinction law. stated, Bishop, Law, 208 (9th 1923) 18 'In jurisprudence, permission license, and, proceeding lawfully way, abuses him, beginning subsequent abuse. But doctrine prevail jurisprudence; punishable afterward intent, yet together.' 19 Unless 'committed circumstances actual peace, indictable redressed only.' Clark Marshall, Crimes (5th 1952), 607.6 itself. Cargill, Brev. 445 (1810), forcible entry, saying 20 'If prosecutor better defendant, availed himself remedy. punish, criminally, private injury nature. 21 be, least, acts, words, gestures, offence charged.' 445. (Italics added.) 22 pre-existing relied completely unrelated, entire despite contrary, incorporating found cases.7 23 Sou h cited North rare sufficed warning' own State's meant something said. here. ascribed statute—also announced recent vintage—was expressly 'repeatedly held.' Clyburn, 247 N.C. 455, 462, 101 295, 300 (1958). demonstrated above, Carolina's held' thing, nor intimated attribution Moreover, if indeed consulted, Mitchell, consonant traditional similar courts. Goldsmith State, 86 Ala. 55, Southern S69 480 (1889), Alabama 3874 1887, imposing penalties 'enters having warned so,' 'There first, afterwards. One already possession, trespasser, obtains society, cannot, given, converted violator construing, although criminal.' Ala., 57, So., 480—481.8 25 Martin Struthers, 319 141, 147, 63 862, 865, 87 313, noted 'Traditionally American persons onto keep off.' Section example 'traditional law.' statutes, onto' interpreted here inconsistent course, 26 Our conclusion confirmed evidently aware authority included May 16, shortly enacted 388 Code, failing refusing immediately ordered requested so.' Similarly, occur arrested 16—386, why answered, And further assisting ousting petitione s, answered not, rather 'My purpose creating disturbance my presence, purpose.' appears neither Legislature anticipated 27 think new deprived rights guaranteed Clause. proscription laws invalidate compels here, sought achieve While future, impose fairly Application rule particularly compelling where, improper immoral. Compare McBoyle 25, 340.9 28 last analysis controlled, Marshall Wiltberger, Wheat. 76, 96, 37: 29 strong indeed, departing plain especially act, search intention suggest. To determine authorise us dangerous, carry mischief provisions, punish enumerated equal atrocity, kindred character, enumerated. ' 30 'not statute' follows without contravention 31 Reversed. 32 GOLDBERG, THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, would, while joining judgment reasons concurring GOLDBERG Bell Maryland, 286, 1847. 33 DOUGLAS 242, 1823. 34 BLACK, HARLAN WHITE join, dissenting. place Carolina. went store's policy sell restaurant. sat down, nevertheless remov again refused, both. Code,1 tried Recorder's guilty.2 appeal County unreported appealed likewise convicting protection consider questions. contradicted service acknowledged serving Apart peaceful orderly. claimed served; insisted, insists, legal choose customers removed request. today 318, 1814, belief compel accept serve, serve racial prejudice, adherence local custom, conceives economic self-interest, arrest trespassing kind 'state action' Here us, ordinance, official utterance, tending prevent chosen Robinson Florida, 153, 1693, Lombard Louisiana, 267, 1122, 338; Peterson Greenville, 244, 1119, 323. raised, therefore, Maryland controlling. 37 contend cf. 654, indefinite urnish Edwards 372 229, 680, 697; Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 60 900, 1213; 888. conviction. remains considered, contention, rests entry,' voted statute3 identical challenge difference statutes—the crossing so, speaks long accepted becomes refuses (1929); 142, 783, 785 (1907); Lazarus, Mill (1817). believe petitioners4 anyone else misled believing stay owner's protest guilty 38 affirm. That section provides: 'Entry same. Every horse, mule, cow, hog livestock pastured, misdemeanor fine exceed hundred dollars, imprisonment hard labor public works county exceeding thirty days. four conspicuous places borders posting taken conclusive aforesaid trespassing.' Charleston 376, 123 512, decided December 13, 1961, reversed, 551, 1901. Columbia Barr, 395, 521, 1734, Mitchell. 27, 340, 341, 816; Cardiff, 344 174, 176—177, 73 189, 190, 97 200; 226. Thus, country, ept according prescribed government sovereign imputed committed, time.' Kring Missouri, 107 221, 235, 443, 506. Fletcher Peck, Cranch 87, 138, 162; Cummings Wall. 277, 325—326, 356. irrelevant point testified determination provides basis pertinent ad hoc appraisal subjective expectations defendants. apart record silent for, peace—on Hence inference violating Accord, Krauss 216 Md. 369, 140 Atlantic 653 (1958); Wharton, Procedure, 868 (1957); Hochheimer, §§ 327—329 ed.). understood incorporate considered civil—in 'trespass' all. books, side deal eo nomine 'trespass'; 16—382 unlawful 'wilfully, unlawfully maliciously real 1960 legislation dealing specifically refusal (thus filling gap filled case), recognition declaring provisions to, superseding, relating another.' 1962, 16—388. seem regarded 'trespass,' offense another' enter. therefore untenable. Pennsylvania R. Fucello, 91 N.J.L. 476, 477, 103 988 (1918); Commonwealth Richardson, 313 Mass. 632, 48 146 648 (1943); Brunson 201, 203, 197, 198 (1904). Vand.L.Rev., 540: overbroadness should depend moral quality order chill genuine social utility, throw mantle beyond periphery, boundary clear.' Supp.), conspicious arrest; Md.Code, 577. agreed day 'sit in' arrested; 'if that.'

Classification Label: 1