Court Opinion

ID: 9459353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:18:18.423897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:07.948149
License: Public Domain

WILKEY, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the result reached and in Judge Robinson’s very scholarly and thorough opinion. The actions for which the appellant was charged and convicted simply were actions which were not intended to be prohibited by the language of the statute (D.C.Code, § 22-1115), which the legislative history, as of the 1937 date of enactment, makes clear, whatever the present or recent administrative understanding of the effect of the statute. The conviction therefore cannot be allowed to stand.
The fact that the recent administrative interpretation of this statute has not been the same as that now promulgated by this court, plus the enactment of certain legislation in October 1972, obliges me to raise a caveat.
It seems undeniable on the basis of Judge Robinson’s careful legislative history research that the correct interpretation of § 22-1115 is that the prohibited conduct necessarily involves the display of a flag, banner, placard, or device designed to accomplish the prohibited objectives. This is the construction set forth in our opinion (footnote 41), it is supported by the construction of the original bill introduced by the Senate *528Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Pittman’s substitute bill which ultimately became law, and by the dialogue between Senator Pittman and Senator La Follette, whose substitute bill (not adopted) would clearly have prohibited speech, gestures, or other acts to accomplish the objectives admittedly prohibited by § 22-1115. So much for the history at the time the statute was enacted.
My caveat is that this interpretation of D.C.Code § 22-1115 does not square with the new 1972 Act for the Protection of Foreign Officials and Official Guests of the United States,1 quoted in pertinent part in footnote 120 of the court’s opinion. The court’s opinion comments, “That legislation pursues objectives not essentially variant from those underlying Section 22-1115, and provides for foreign emissaries in the states safeguards comparable to those afforded by Section 22-1115 and other statutes in the District.” (Footnote references omitted.)
The 1972 Act for the Protection of Foreign Officials and Official Guests of the United States in its comparable provision (18 U.S.C. § 112(c) ) begins: “Whoever within the United States but outside the District of Columbia and within one hundred feet of any building or premises belonging to or used or occupied by a foreign government. . ” It then proceeds to prohibit among other things, “(1) parades, pickets, displays any flag, banner, sign, placard, or device, or utters any word, phrase, sound, or noise, for the purpose of intimidating, coercing, threatening, or harassing any foreign official. . ” It seems to me that when the last Congress in October 1972 enacted a statute which “pursues objectives not essentially variant from those underlying Section 22-1115,” but made that statute only applicable outside the District of Columbia, the Congress proceeded on the assumption that the existing statute in the District of Columbia provided the same protection for the foreign emissaries.2 If that assumption be true, then Congress apparently assumed that, not only was the displaying of any flag, banner, sign, placard, or device which would intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign official prohibited, but likewise prohibited by the existing D.C. Code § 22-1115 under which appellant Zaimi was convicted, erroneously as we now hold, were also actions described as *529“or utters any word, phrase, sound, or noise” for the same purposes.
If our opinion today is correct, then "Congress by the 1972 legislation "provided much more protection’ -against harassment and intimidation for foreign emissaries outside the capital of our coüntry than is now provided in Washington, D.C., itself. It is doubtful if Congress intended to do this. It appears that Congress in 1972 incorrectly assumed the interpretation of D.C.Code §-22-1115 as set forth in footnote 40 in pur opinion today, which would have, sustained the conviction of Zaimi. It is doubtful if Congress analyzed the D.C. statute as we do in footnote 41, which we hold correct and which is supported by the history of the enactment 'of that legislation in 1937.
If my comparison of D.C.Code§ 22-1115 with the newly enacted Public Law. No. 92-539 (1972) (18 U.S.C. § 112(c)) is correct, and Congress did enact the latter under a misapprehension as to the limited coverage of D.C.Code § 22-4115,3 then Congress may make the protection of foreign emissaries in the nation’s' capital uniform with that afforded throughout the United States in one o£ several ways. Congress could repeal -flie limiting words “but outside the District of Columbia” of 18 U.S.C. § 112(c) and make-clear that the new statute is designed to displace D.C.Code § 22-11X5 as law in the District of Columbia ajsofq Or; Congress could enact appropriate portions of Public Law 92-539 as part of the D.C.Code and repeal the present D.C.Code § 22-1115. Lastly, if in fact Congress is satisfied to have differing degrees of protection afforded foreign official guests inside and outside the national capital, then it can do nothing and permit the U.S.Code and D.C.Code provisions to reflect those differing degrees of protection.

. Public Law No. 92-539, 86 Stat. 1070 (1972). 18 U.S.C. § 112(c).

. The legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 112(c) strongly supports this analysis. In a report accompanying a predecessor bill that contained language identical to the bill that eventually became Section 112(c), the House Committee on the Judiciary made the following statement:
[Section 112(c)] is not made applicable to the District of Columbia because a District law of long standing affords similar protection to foreign officials in the Nation’s Capital. See D.C.Code, Section 22-1115, supra.
H.R.Rep. No. 1202, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess. 20 (1972). An even more significant statement was made in the Committee Report that accompanied the House Bill that eventually was enacted, with minor amendments, into law:
The purpose of subsection 112(c) is to protect the peace, dignity and security of foreign officials when they are at their place of work. This provision would not apply to the District of Columbia because the District law already affords even more extensive protection to foreign officials in the Nation’s Capital. (D.C.Code § 22-1115) While the District law has a “500-foot rule,” the narrower radius has been adopted for the more general provision of this bill in order to minimize interference with the freedom on ingress and egress of individuals in the vicinity of foreign government offices in congested metropolitan areas.
H.R.Rep. No. 1268, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 9 (1972) (emphasis added).
In a similar vein the Report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary said the following:
The provisions of subsection (c) are not made applicable to the District of Columbia because a District law of long standing affords similar protection to foreign officials in the Nation’s Capital. (Section 22-1115, D.C.Code.)
S.Rep. No. 1105, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 19 (1972).

. The State Department likewise appoared to equate the 1972 national legislation with that already applying in the District of Columbia. In commenting on). Public Law 92-539 after it had passed the House, in August 1972 the State Department. Bureau of Public Affairs, in its publication “Foreign Policy Outlines,” re’/.. “Protection of Foreign Diplomats” said' .Protection for missions: Diplomatic 'missions in Washington are given a ."statutory protection (under D.C. law) which prevents demonstrations within 500--feet of their respective establish-' pents, and are provided with a special Federal protection service along with local, police protection. Similar protective measures for foreign missions outside Washington are incorporated in the current legislation. The anti-picketing ban is extended by the new legislation to diplomatic establishments in New York and elsewhere in the U.S., when the picketing is for the purpose of intimidating, coercing, or harassing any foreign official or obstructing him in the performance of his duties. Also, the radius provided in the new legislation for diplomatic missions outside Washington is reduced to 100 feet in the interest of allowing public access to buildings adjacent to missions in the more congested areas.