Feiner v. People of State of New York, No. 93

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtVINSON
Citation340 U.S. 315,95 L.Ed. 295,71 S.Ct. 303
Docket NumberNo. 93
Decision Date15 January 1951
PartiesFEINER v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK

340 U.S. 315
71 S.Ct. 303
95 L.Ed. 295
FEINER

v.

PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK.

No. 93.
Argued Oct. 17, 1950.
Decided Jan. 15, 1951.

Messrs. Sidney H. Greenberg, Syracuse, N.Y., Emanuel Redfield, New York City, for petitioner.

Mr. David J. Kelly, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Page 316

Mr. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was convicted of the offense of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor under the New York penal laws, in the Court of Special Sessions of the City of Syracuse and was sentenced to thirty days in the county penitentiary. The conviction was affirmed by the Onondaga County Court and the New York Court of Appeals, 1950, 300 N.Y. 391, 91 N.E.2d 316. The case is here on certiorari, 1950, 339 U.S. 962, 70 S.Ct. 987, petitioner having claimed that the conviction is in violation of his right of free speech under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the review of state decisions where First Amendment rights are drawn in question, we of course make an examination of the evidence to ascertain independently whether the right has been violated. Here, the trial judge, who heard the case without a jury, rendered an oral decision at the end of the trial, setting forth his determination of the facts upon which he found the petitioner guilty. His decision indicated generally that he believed the state's witnesses, and his summation of the testimony was used by the two New York courts on review in stating the facts. Our appraisal of the facts is, therefore, based upon the uncontroverted facts and, where controversy exists, upon that testimony which the trial judge did reasonably conclude to be true.

On the evening of March 8, 1949, petitioner Irving Feiner was addressing an open-air meeting at the corner of South McBride and Harrison Streets in the City of Syracuse. At approximately 6:30 p.m., the police received a telephone complaint concerning the meeting, and two officers were detailed to investigate. One of these officers went to the scene immediately, the other arriving some twelve minutes later. They found a crowd of about seventy-five or eighty people, both Negro and white, filling the sidewalk and spreading out into the street. Pe-

Page 317

titioner, standing on a large wooden box on the sidewalk, was addressing the crowd through a loud-speaker system attached to an automobile. Although the purpose of his speech was to urge his listeners to attend a meeting to be held that night in the Syracuse Hotel, in its course he was making derogatory remarks concerning President Truman, the American Legion, the Mayor of Syracuse, and other local political officials.

The police officers made no effort to interfere with petitioner's speech, but were first concerned with the effect of the crowd on both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. They observed the situation from the opposite side of the street, noting that some pedestrians were forced to walk in the street to avoid the crowd. Since traffic was passing at the time, the officers attempted to get the people listening to petitioner back on the sidewalk. The crowd was restless and there was some pushing, shoving and milling around. One of the officers telephoned the police station from a nearby store, and then both policemen crossed the street and mingled with the crowd without any intention of arresting the speaker.

At this time, petitioner was speaking in a 'loud, high-pitched voice.' He gave the impression that he was endeavoring to arouse the Negro people against the whites, urging that they rise up in arms and fight for equal rights. The statements before such a mixed audience 'stirred up a little excitement.' Some of the onlookers made remarks to the police about their inability to handle the crowd and at least one threatened violence if the police did not act. There were others who appeared to be favoring petitioner's arguments. Because of the feeling that existed in the crowd both for and against the speaker, the officers finally 'stepped in to prevent it from resulting in a fight.' One of the officers approached the petitioner, not for the purpose of arresting him, but to get him to break up the crowd. He asked petitioner to get down

Page 318

off the box, but the latter refused to accede to his request and continued talking. The officer waited for a minute and then demanded that he cease talking. Although the officer had thus twice requested petitioner to stop over the course of several minutes, petitioner not only ignored him but continued talking. During all this time, the crowd was pressing closer around petitioner and the officer. Finally, the officer told petitioner he was under arrest and ordered him to get down from the box, reaching up to grab him. Petitioner stepped down, announcing over the microphone that 'the law has arrived, and I suppose they will take over now.' In all, the officer had asked petitioner to get down off the box three times over a space of four or five minutes. Petitioner had been speaking for over a half hour.

On these facts, petitioner was specifically charged with violation of § 722 of the Penal Law of New York, Mc.K.Consol. Laws, c. 40, the pertinent part of which is set out in the margin.1 The bill of particulars, demanded by petitioner and furnished by the State, gave in detail the facts upon which the prosecution relied to support the charge of disorderly conduct. Paragraph C is particularly pertinent here: 'By ignoring and refusing to heed and obey reasonable police orders issued at the time and place mentioned in the Information to regulate and control said crowd and to prevent a breach or breaches of the peace and to prevent injury to pedes-

Page 319

trians attempting to use said walk, and being forced into the highway adjacent to the place in question, and prevent injury to the public generally.'

We are not faced here with blind condonation by a state court of arbitrary police action. Petitioner was accorded a full, fair trial. The trial judge heard testimony supporting and contradicting the judgment of the police officers that a clear danger of disorder was threatened. After weighing this contradictory evidence, the trial judge reached the conclusion that the police officers were justified in taking action to prevent a breach of the peace. The exercise of the police officers' proper discretionary power to prevent a breach of the peace was thus approved by the trial court and later by two courts on review.2 The courts below recognized petitioner's right to hold a street meeting at this locality, to make use of loud-speaking equipment in giving his speech, and to make derogatory remarks concerning public officials and the American Legion. They found that the officers in making the arrest were motivated solely by a proper concern for the preservation of order and protection of the general welfare, and that there was no evidence which could lend color to a claim that the acts of the police were a cover for suppression of petitioner's views and opinions. Petitioner was thus neither arrested nor convicted for the

Page 320

making or the content of his speech. Rather, it was the reaction which it actually engendered.

The language of Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213, is appropriate here. 'The offense known as breach of the peace embraces a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. It includes not only violent acts but acts and words likely to produce violence in others. On one would have the hardihood to suggest that the principle of freedom of speech sanctions incitement to riot or that religious liberty connotes the privilege to exhort others to physical attack upon those belonging to another sect. When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious.' 310 U.S. at page 308, 60 S.Ct. at page 905. The findings of the New York courts as to the condition of the crowd and the refusal of petitioner to obey the police requests, supported as they are by the record of this case, are persuasive that the conviction of petitioner for violation of public peace, order and authority does not exceed the bounds of proper state police action. This Court respects, as it must, the interest of the community in maintaining peace and order on its streets. Schneider v. State of New Jersey, Town of Irvington, 1939, 308 U.S. 147, 160, 60 S.Ct. 146, 150, 84 L.Ed. 155; Kovacs v. Cooper, 1949, 336 U.S. 77, 82, 69 S.Ct. 448, 451, 93 L.Ed. 513. We cannot say that the preservation of that interest here encroaches on the constitutional rights of this petitioner.

We are well aware that the ordinary murmurings and objections of a hostile audience cannot be allowed to silence a speaker, and are also mindful of the possible danger of giving overzealous police officials complete discretion to break up otherwise lawful public meetings. 'A State may not unduly suppress free communication of views, religious or other, under the guise of conserving desirable conditions.' Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. at page

Page 321

308, 60 S.Ct. at page 905, 84 L.Ed. 1213. But we are not faced here with such a situation. It is one thing to say that the police cannot be used as an instrument for the suppression of unpopular views, and another to say that, when as here the speaker passes the bounds of argument or persuasion and undertakes incitement to riot, they are powerless to prevent a breach of the peace. Nor in this case can we condemn the considered judgment of three New York courts approving the means which the police, faced with a crisis, used in the exercise of their power and duty to preserve peace and order. The findings of the state courts as to the existing situation and the imminence of greater disorder coupled with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
241 practice notes
  • Leonard v. Robinson, No. 05-1728.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 2, 2007
    ...697 (1963) (reversing breach of the peace convictions for protest against segregation on the capitol grounds). But see Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315, 320, 71 S.Ct. 303, 95 L.Ed. 295 (1951) (upholding conviction for breach of the peace where sidewalk speaker created an "immediate threat t......
  • Brewer v. Hoxie School District No. 46, No. 15510.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 25, 1956
    ...the Supreme Court in Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213; Feiner v. People of State of New York, 340 U.S. 315, 71 S. Ct. 303, 95 L.Ed. 267; Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834; Chaplinsky v. State of New Hamps......
  • Jointrefugee Committee v. Grath National Council Offriendship v. Grath International Workers Order v. Grath, ANTI-FASCIST
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1951
    ...Communications Ass'n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 394 399, 70 S.Ct. 674, 681—684, 94 L.Ed. 925; Feiner v. People of State of New York, 340 U.S. 315, 71 S.Ct. 303, 328. 14. The fairness of that designation is considered under the next point. 15. Perhaps they would insist not only on notic......
  • Congine v. Vill. of Crivitz & Allen Brey, Case No. 11–C–0637.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • May 28, 2013
    ...prevent a riot or serious bodily injury to those gathered.” Bell v. Keating, 697 F.3d 445, 457 (7th Cir.2012) (citing Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315, 321, 71 S.Ct. 303, 95 L.Ed. 295 (1951)). But it is not enough that violence is merely possible. There must be more than the mere potential ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
241 cases
  • Leonard v. Robinson, No. 05-1728.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 2, 2007
    ...697 (1963) (reversing breach of the peace convictions for protest against segregation on the capitol grounds). But see Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315, 320, 71 S.Ct. 303, 95 L.Ed. 295 (1951) (upholding conviction for breach of the peace where sidewalk speaker created an "immediate threat t......
  • Brewer v. Hoxie School District No. 46, No. 15510.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 25, 1956
    ...the Supreme Court in Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213; Feiner v. People of State of New York, 340 U.S. 315, 71 S. Ct. 303, 95 L.Ed. 267; Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834; Chaplinsky v. State of New Hamps......
  • Jointrefugee Committee v. Grath National Council Offriendship v. Grath International Workers Order v. Grath, ANTI-FASCIST
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1951
    ...Communications Ass'n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 394 399, 70 S.Ct. 674, 681—684, 94 L.Ed. 925; Feiner v. People of State of New York, 340 U.S. 315, 71 S.Ct. 303, 328. 14. The fairness of that designation is considered under the next point. 15. Perhaps they would insist not only on notic......
  • Congine v. Vill. of Crivitz & Allen Brey, Case No. 11–C–0637.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • May 28, 2013
    ...prevent a riot or serious bodily injury to those gathered.” Bell v. Keating, 697 F.3d 445, 457 (7th Cir.2012) (citing Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315, 321, 71 S.Ct. 303, 95 L.Ed. 295 (1951)). But it is not enough that violence is merely possible. There must be more than the mere potential ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • THOSE ARE FIGHTING WORDS, AREN'T THEY? ON ADDING INJURY TO INSULT.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 Nbr. 1, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...plaintiffs conviction because of the overly broad nature of the statute providing the basis of his conviction), with Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315, 318 n.l, 321 (1951) (upholding the plaintiffs conviction despite the broad language of the statute providing the basis of his (9.) See Evans......
  • The Fiction of the First Freedom
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 6-2, June 1953
    • June 1, 1953
    ...v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937); Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). 28 Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1948). 29 Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952). 305 conduct in peacetime is not usually punishable. Judicial treatment ofpersons charged with ......
  • ILLIBERAL LAW IN AMERICAN COURTS.
    • United States
    • May 1, 2020
    ..."I understand that people in authoritarian countries must obey arbitrary orders," Justice Black once wrote in dissent. Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315, 328 (1951) (Black, J., dissenting). "I had hoped that there was no such duty in the United States." (221) Commonwealth v. Koczwara, 155 A.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT