City of Brookfield v. Groppi, 270

• Decision Date: 02 March 1971
• Docket Number: No. 270,270
• Citation: 50 Wis.2d 166,184 N.W.2d 96
• Parties: CITY OF BROOKFIELD, Respondent, v. James E. GROPPI, Francis X. Blair, Ernesto Chacon, Betty Harris and Lawrence Gantt, Appellants.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 96

184 N.W.2d 96

50 Wis.2d 166

CITY OF BROOKFIELD, Respondent, v. James E. GROPPI, Francis X. Blair, Ernesto Chacon, Betty Harris and Lawrence Gantt, Appellants.

No. 270.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 2, 1971.

William M. Coffey and John D. Murray, Milwaukee, for appellants.

Schmus & Panosian, West Allis, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

On September 21, 1969, the appellants James E. Groppi, Francis X. Blair, Ernesto Chacon, Betty Harris, and Lawrence Gantt were arrested in the city of Brookfield, Wisconsin, for picketing before and about the residence of Assemblyman Kenneth Merkel, in violation of sec. 9.25 of the city of Brookfield code of ordinances (also known as Ordinance 5.02), which prohibits residential picketing. On January 22, 1970, they were found guilty and a forfeiture was imposed by the county court of Waukesha county after a trial. A motion to dismiss on the ground the city ordinance was unconstitutional was denied. On April 24, 1970, and appeal to review the judgment of conviction and the order denying dismissal was affirmed by the circuit court of Waukesha county; such affirmance was then appealed to this court. The sole question raised is the constitutionality of city of Brookfield's ordinance, which reads as follows:

'9.25 Residential Picketing Prohibited.

(1) Declaration. It is hereby declared that the protection and preservation of the home is the keystone of democratic government; that the public health and welfare and the good order of the community require that members of the community enjoy in their homes and dwellings a feeling of well-being, tranquility, and privacy, and when absent from their homes and dwellings, carry with them the sense of security inherent in the assurance that they may return to the enjoyment of their homes and dwellings; that the practice of picketing before or about residences and dwellings causes emotional disturbance and distress to the occupants; obstructs and interferes with the free use of public sidewalks and public ways of travel; that such practice has as its object the harassing of such occupants; and without resort to such practice full opportunity exists, and under the terms and provisions of this ordinance will continue to exist for the exercise of freedom of speech and other constitutional rights; and that the provisions hereinafter enacted are necessary for the public interest to avoid the detrimental results herein set forth and are enacted by the Common Council of the City of...