City of St. Louis v. Tinker, 59088
| Decision Date | 08 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 59088,59088 |
| Citation | 542 S.W.2d 512 |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent, v. Lorena Jeanne TINKER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Dianne Taylor and Toby Hollander, Taylor, Eichner, Hollander & Platke, St. Louis, for appellant.
Judith Anne Ronzio, Asst. City Counselor, St. Louis, for respondent.
The defendant-appellant Lorena Jeanne Tinker was charged in St. Louis City Court with peace disturbance under section 762.030, Rev.Code of St. Louis 1960, and resisting arrest. She was acquitted of the resisting arrest charge and convicted of peace disturbance. Appellant appealed the conviction to the St. Louis Court of Criminal Corrections and, on a trial de novo without a jury, was convicted of peace disturbance and sentence to fifteen days in the city workhouse. Execution of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation for two years.
After appellant's motion for new trial was overruled, she filed her notice of appeal to this court. The principal issue on appeal is the constitutionality of the peace disturbance ordinance of St. Louis as appellant contends it is violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The resolution of this appeal requires a construction of certain provisions of the United States Constitution; therefore, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to Art. V, sec. 3, Mo.Const., as amended 1970.
There is some dispute as to the facts but there is general agreement as to the overall situation which gave rise to the arrest of appellant. On July 12, 1973, a group of people gathered at St. Louis city hall to protest the alleged lax enforcement of the city's lead paint ordinance. A number of the protestors decided to remain in the rotunda of city hall through the night to continue their protest. The mayor permitted this to be done. Mrs. Tinker had been one of the protestors who arrived about 2:30 p.m. She testified she left city hall about 4:30 p.m. to go get sleeping bags and sweaters for the protestors to use during the night and returned about 7:30 p.m. whereupon she sought entrance at the east door of city hall. She knocked on the door and it was opened by one of the security guards.
The city's evidence consisted of the testimony of three police officers. Officer Miller stated that he was on duty at city hall that evening and about 7:30 p.m., his attention was drawn to the east door where he observed Mrs. Tinker yelling at a security guard. Although he could hear Mrs. Tinker from his position approximately 30 feet away, he could not understand what she was saying. After walking the distance to the door, he told Mrs. Tinker that no one was permitted to enter the building although anyone inside was free to leave. Mrs. Tinker screamed that she was coming inside and no one was going to keep her out. Officer Miller said the screaming attracted the attention of the approximately 35 protestors in the rotunda who then began congregating in the area of the door. She said she had some bedding for the protestors and was coming into the building. She called the police 'pigs', 'stupid', and 'cops'. Officer Crook and Lt. Beech were also present and came over to the eastdoor area. There were other people on 12th street (the east side of city hall) and they began coming up the steps of the building. Miller didn't know if they were demonstrators or just passersby. After the screaming went on for a minute or so, Miller told her she was under arrest for peace disturbance, to which she responded she was not going to jail. In addition to screaming, she waved her arms and attempted to kick the officer. Officer Crook and Lt. Beech assisted Miller in handcuffing her hands behind her back. As Mrs. Tinker was being arrested, some of the demonstrators said, 'You are not going to arrest Mrs. Tinker.' The police took Mrs. Tinker out to a parking lot and then drove her to the fourth district station. In describing the volume of appellant's noise, the officer said it was loud enough to attract 10 or 12 people on 12th street and those inside city hall to come to the door.
Officer Crook testified there were about 50 to 75 people demonstrating against lead paint and of these about 40--50 were inside city hall. He saw some people inside going toward the door and heard a commotion. He went to the door and saw Mrs. Tinker arguing with his partner claiming she had a right to come into the building to take clothing and bedding to the other protestors. He could hear this arguing from about 10 to 15 feet away. The only thing he could recall Mrs. Tinker screaming was, Lt. Beech ordered her arrest for causing a disturbance and 'riotous situation'. As Mrs. Tinker was being arrested she called out, 'Help me.' According to the officer about 15 to 20 people outside and 30 to 35 people inside moved toward the door, but he did not hear them say anything. Apparently in response to a directive by another officer, these people came no closer than 25 to 30 feet.
Lt. Beech testified he was stationed inside city hall. The demonstrators were allowed to spend the night in the rotunda but if they left they could not return that night. He heard loud talking near the east door and went over there. He told appellant that no one was permitted to enter the building. She tried to push and shove her way into city hall. She did not curse but did call the police 'pigs' and said they were the cause of a lot of death and destruction in the world. He told her she would be arrested if she did not leave the place and then ordered her arrest because she would not leave. The yelling went on and she tried to kick the officers when they were handcuffing her. About 15--20 people inside and the same number outside came to the door of the building. After the arrest took place, the other protestors just went back and sat down. The lieutenant testified appellant said nothing vulgar but her calling police 'pigs' and saying they were responsible for many peoples' death was offensive to him and uncomplimentary.
Ordinance No. 762.030 of the city of St. Louis provides:
The information charging appellant with violating the above-noted ordinance is as follows:
Appellant contends in point I that ordinance 762.030 'is unconstitutionally vague on its face, and thereby violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution' and in point II that the ordinance is 'unconstitutionally overbroad, sweeping within its prohibitions activities which are constitutionally protected and therefore violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.'
At the conclusion of the case the trial judge held that there was no evidence that appellant 'did then and there use indecent, lewd, and profane language', struck that phrase from the information, and then found appellant guilty of peace disturbance under the ordinance. Appellant was therefore convicted of disturbing the peace by 'noisy, riotous, and disorderly conduct, in a public place.'
As noted supra, appellant's main contention is that the ordinance is, on its face, unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Numerous cases are cited in support of this contention.
Similar contentions have been considered by the Supreme Court of the United States with reference to various peace disturbance ordinances and laws. The problem arises principally when a person has been convicted of peace disturbance where the factual setting involved loud, insulting, obscene, offensive, or opprobrious language, rather than assaulting, striking, fighting, or physical contact with another person.
In this case the conduct which was the basis for the arrest and conviction of appellant consisted of the uttering of words, i.e., speech. The noun 'conduct' includes within its meaning the act of speaking and is not restricted to physically interfering with another. There was no evidence that appellant physically abused anyone prior to the time the police undertook to arrest her for 'peace disturbance'. Whatever she did while the police were arresting her was, presumably, part of the resisting-arrest charge of which she was acquitted and occurred after being told she was under arrest for peace disturbance. This case therefore comes within that category of cases involving language only and not physical contact.
The appellant does not contend the words she is alleged to have spoken are protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, there is no First Amendment claim being made at all. The question to be resolved as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State
...if it is "limited to punishment of acts or conduct inciting violence or intended to provoke others to violence." City of St. Louis v. Tinker, 542 S.W.2d 512, 515 (Mo.1976). For nearly a century, the Missouri Supreme Court has held that a conviction for breach of the peace or peace disturban......
-
Hershfield v. Com.
...at 134, 94 S.Ct. at 972-73; Matter of Welfare of S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d at 419; Downs, 278 Md. at 617, 366 A.2d at 44; City of St. Louis v. Tinker, 542 S.W.2d 512, 519 (Mo.1976). If one assumes, as the majority implicitly does, that the words fall within the proscribed category, I find no evide......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...in this court since not enumerated within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Cases such as City of St. Louis v. Tinker, 542 S.W.2d 512 (Mo. banc 1976), decided upon different constitutional language, no longer control the jurisdictional The District Court of Wyando......
-
City of Wichita v. Griffie
... ... thus satisfied overbreadth standards); City of St. Louis ... v. Tinker , 542 S.W.2d 512 (Mo. 1976) (ordinance ... proscribing verbal conduct ... ...