City of Tacoma v. Roe

• Decision Date: 24 May 1937
• Docket Number: 26520.
• Citation: 68 P.2d 1028,190 Wash. 444
• Parties: CITY OF TACOMA v. ROE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

68 P.2d 1028

190 Wash. 444

CITY OF TACOMA v. ROE.

No. 26520.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 24, 1937

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.

Ole Roe was convicted of the violation of an ordinance of the City of Tacoma, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

P. L Pendleton and W. G. Palmer, both of Tacoma, for appellant.

Howard Carothers, Bartlett Rummel, and Geo. F. Abel, all of Tacoma for respondent.

BLAKE Justice.

Ordinance No. 11190 of the City of Tacoma provides 'It shall be unlawful for any person, group or assemblage of persons whose standing, remaining or being congregated upon any public street or sidewalk in the city of Tacoma shall obstruct, prevent or interfere with the free and unobstructed use of such street or sidewalk by other persons, to fail or refuse to move on or disperse upon being ordered to do so, by any police officer of the city of Tacoma or other peace officer.'

By complaint filed in police court, the defendant was charged with violating the ordinance, in that, on May 4, 1936, he '* * * did then and there unlawfully fail and refuse to move on and disperse upon being ordered so to do by police officers of the city of Tacoma, and particularly by Larry Amundsen, Lieutenant of Police, said defendant being then and there one of a group and assemblage of persons whose standing, remaining and being congregated upon a public street land sidewalk in the vicinity of Lincoln High School, hear South G Street and Columbia Avenue in said city, prevented and interfered with the free and unobstructed use of such street and sidewalk by other persons.'

Having been convicted in police court, defendant appealed to the superior court, where, by verdict of a jury, he was again found guilty. From judgment and sentence entered on the verdict, defendant appeals.

The evidence showed that at the time and place mentioned in the complaint, a crowd of from 150 to 200 people were gathered on the sidewalk within a distance of 75 or 80 feet; that the crowd was so dense as to obstruct the free passage of pedestrians; that defendant was among the crowd; that he and others were ordered to move on and disperse by police officers of the city; that defendant and others refused to comply with the order.

From the foregoing résumé of the evidence, it is clear that there was evidence to support every element of the offense defined by the ordinance. Indeed, we do not understand the appellant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, if the ordinance is a reasonable...