King v. City of Clarksdale
Decision Date | 09 May 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 44042,44042 |
Citation | 186 So.2d 228 |
Parties | Willie KING v. CITY OF CLARKSDALE. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Carsie A. Hall, Jackson, Jack Greenberg, Charles H. Jones, Jr., Melvyn Zarr, New York City, for appellant.
William H. Maynard, Clarksdale, James A. Phyfer, Jackson, James E. Upshaw, Clarksdale, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of Clarksdale on a charge of parading without a permit. The conviction was affirmed by the county court and by the circuit court from whence it comes here.
The proof showed no disorderly conduct nor any distracting activity, and we are compelled to reverse the case and dismiss the appellant.
The sole question argued by appellant is the unconstitutionality of the city ordinance under which he was convicted. The first section thereof reads as follows:
'That it shall be unlawful for any person, or persons, to conduct or participate in any parade or marching on the sidewalks or streets of the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, or to move or stand on said sidewalks or streets, carrying banners, placards, signs or the like, or to sit or lie on the sidewalks or streets or curbs of said City, or for any person, or persons, to engage in shouting, singing, orating, public speaking, or any other distracting activities of any kind on any of the sidewalks or streets of the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, without the written permission of the Chief of Police of said City.'
It will be seen that this ordinance confers upon the chief of police of the city unrestricted discretion as to who shall or shall not parade or march on the sidewalks or streets of the city, with no standards as to time, place of marching or any other feature.
In Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed 1049 (1941), a somewhat similar ordinance was held valid by the Supreme Court of the United States because of the construction placed thereupon by the New Hampshire court. The Court said:
(312 U.S. at 574-575, 61 S.Ct. at 765, 85 L.Ed. at 1052-1053.)
With reference to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, the Court in that same opinion said:
'* * * But the court held that the licensing board was not vested with arbitrary power or an unfettered discretion; that its discretion must be exercised with 'uniformity of method of treatment upon the facts of each application, free from improper or inappropriate considerations and from unfair discrimination'; that a 'systematic, consistent and just order of treatment, with reference to the convenience of public use of the highways, is the statutory mandate'. The defendants, said the court, 'had a right, under the act, to a license to march when, where and as they did, if after a required investigation it was found that the convenience of the public in the use of the streets would not thereby the unduly disturbed, upon such conditions or changes in time, place and manner as would avoid disturbance'.
(312 U.S. at 576, 61 S.Ct. at 766, 85 L.Ed at 1053-1054.)
Following that case, the Supreme Court of the United States had before it Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S.Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed.2d 471 (1965), where the Court considered a somewhat similar statute of the State of Louisiana under which appellant was convicted. There, the Court said:
'* * * The statute itself provides no standards for the determination of local officials as to which assemblies to permit or which to prohibit. Nor are there any administrative regulations on this subject which have been called to our attention. From all the evidence before us it appears that the authorities in Baton Rouge permit or prohibit parades or street meetings in their completely uncontrolled discretion.
'The situation is thus the same as if the statute itself expressly provided that there could only be peaceful parades or demonstrations in the unbridled discretion of the local officials. The pervasive restraint on freedom of discussion by the practice of the authorities under the statute is not any less effective than a statute expressly permitting such selective enforcement. A long line of cases in this Court makes it clear that a State or municipality cannot 'require all who wish to disseminate ideas to present them first to police authorites for their consideration and approval, with a discretion in the police to say some ideas may, while other may not, be * * * disseminate (d) * * *.' Schneider v. State of New Jersey, supra, 308 U.S. 147 at 164, 60 S.Ct. 146, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Francois
...762, 85 L.Ed. 1049; Strother v. Thompson, supra; Hurwitt v. City of Oakland, N.D.Calif.1965, 247 F.Supp. 955; King v. City of Clarksdale, 186 So. 2d 228 (Sup.Ct.Miss.1966). For other examples of protested conduct that is not merely a verbal expression see West Virginia State Board of Educat......
-
Anderson v. Nosser
...Mississippi state courts explicitly ruling on either the Natchez or identical ordinances. See Guyot v. Pierce, supra; King v. City of Clarksdale, Miss.1966, 186 So. 2d 228. We therefore think that there was sufficient evidence to raise an issue of the Pierson defense. The court below submit......
-
UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE TO END WAR IN VIET NAM v. Gunn
...Williams v. Wallace, 240 F.Supp. 100 (M.D.Ala.1965); United States v. Clark, 249 F.Supp. 720 (S.D. Ala.1965); King v. City of Clarksdale, 186 So.2d 228 (Sup.Ct.Miss.1966). 3 See N. A. A. C. P. v. Thompson, supra; Baines v. City of Danville, supra; Pritchard v. Downie, supra; Turner v. Gools......
-
Guyot v. Pierce
...has not construed or defined the application of Ordinance 135. That Court did consider the general subject in King v. City of Clarksdale, Miss., 186 So.2d 228 (1966).2 There a Clarksdale ordinance prohibiting parading or marching without the written permission of the Chief of Police, but st......