Kovacs v. Cooper

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation336 U.S. 77,93 L.Ed. 513,69 S.Ct. 448
Docket NumberNo. 9,9
PartiesKOVACS v. COOPER, Judge
Decision Date31 January 1949

See 336 U.S. 921, 69 S.Ct. 638.

Appeal from the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New jersey.

Mr. George Pellettieri, of Trenton, N.J., for appellant.

Louis Josephson, of Trenton, N.J., for appellee.

Mr. Justice REED announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BURTON join.

This appeal involves the validity of a provision of Ordinance No. 430 of the City of Trenton, New Jersey. It reads as follows:

'4. That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation, either as principal, agent or employee, to play, use or operate for advertising purposes, or for any other purpose whatsoever, on or upon the public streets, alleys or thoroughfares in the City of Trenton, any device known as a sound truck, loud speaker or sound amplifier, or radio or phonograph with a loud speaker or sound amplifier, or any other instrument known as a calliope or any instrument of any kind or character which emits therefrom loud and raucous noises and is attached to and upon any vehicle operated or standing upon said streets or public places aforementioned.'

The appellant was found guilty of violating this ordinance by the appellee, a police judge of the City of Trenton. His conviction was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Kovacs v. Cooper, 135 N.J.L. 64, 50 A.2d 451, and the judgment was affirmed without a majority opinion by the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals in an equally divided court. The dissents are printed. 135 N.J.L. 584, 52 A.2d 806.

We took jurisdiction1 to consider the challenge made to the constitutionality of the section on its face and as applied on the ground that § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated because the section and the conviction are in con- travention of rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assemblage and freedom to communicate information and opinions to others. The ordinance is also challenged as violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the ground that it is so obscure, vague, and indefinite as to be impossible of reasonably accurate interpretation. No question was raised as to the sufficiency of the complaint.

At the trial in the Trenton police court, a city patrolman testified that while on his post he heard a sound truck broadcasting music. Upon going in the direction of said sound, he located the truck on a public street near the municipal building. As he approached the truck, the music stopped and he heard a man's voice broadcasting from the truck. The appellant admitted that he operated the mechanism for the music and spoke into the amplifier. The record from the police court does not show the purpose of the broadcasting but the opinion in the Supreme Court suggests that the appellant was using the sound apparatus to comment on a labor dispute then in progress in Trenton.

The contention that the section is so vague, obscure and indefinite as to be unenforceable merits only a passing reference. This objection centers around the use of the words 'loud and raucous.' While these are abstract words, they have through daily use acquired a content that conveys to any interested person a sufficiently accurate concept of what is forbidden. Last term, after thorough consideration of the problem of vagueness in legislation affecting liberty of speech, this Court invalidated a conviction under a New York statute, Penal Law, McK.Consol.Laws, c. 40, § 1141, construed and applied to punish the distribution of magazines 'principally made up of criminal news or stories of deeds of bloodshed, or lust, so massed as to become vehicles for inciting violent and depraved crimes against the person.' Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 518, 68 S.Ct. 665, 671. As thus con- strued we said that the statute was so vague that an honest distributor of tales of war horrors could not know whether he was violating the statute. 333 U.S. at page 520, 68 S.Ct. at page 672. But in the Winters case we pointed out that prosecutions might be brought under statutes punishing the distribution of 'obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting' magazines. 333 U.S. at page 511, 68 S.Ct. at page 668. We said, 333 U.S. at page 518, 68 S.Ct. at page 671:

'The impossibility of defining the precise line between permissible uncertainty in statutes caused by describing crimes by words well understood through long use in the criminal law obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting—and the unconstitutional vagueness that leaves a person uncertain as to the kind of prohibited conduct—massing stories to incide crim—has resulted in three argument of this case in this Court.'

We used the words quoted above from 333 U.S. at page 511, 68 S.Ct. at page 668, as examples of permissible standards of statutes for criminal prosecution. 333 U.S. at page 520, 68 S.Ct. at page 672. There we said:

'To say that a state may not punish by such a vague statute carries no implication that it may not punish circulation of objecti nable printed matter, assuming that it is not protected by the principles of the First Amendment, by the use of apt words to describe the prohibited publications. * * * Neither the states nor Congress are prevented by the requirement of specificity from carrying out their duty of eliminating evils to which, in their judgment, such publications give rise.'

We think the words of § 4 of this Trenton ordinance comply with the requirements of definiteness and clarity, set out above.

The scope of the protection afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment, for the right of a citizen to play music and express his views on matters which he considers to be of interest to himself and others on a public street through sound amplification devices mounted on vehicles, must be considered. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to communicate information and opinion to others are all comprehended on this appeal in the claimed right of free speech. They will be so treated in this opinion.

The use of sound trucks and other peripatetic or stationary broadcasting devices for advertising, for religious exercises and for discussion of issues or controversies has brought forth numerous municipal ordinances. The avowed and obvious purpose of these ordinances is to prohibit or minimize such sounds on or near the streets since some citizens find the noise objectionable and to some degree an interference with the business or social activities in which they are engaged or the quiet that they would like to enjoy.2 A satisfactory adjustment of the conflicting interests is difficult as those who desire to broadcast can hardly acquiesce in a requirement to modulate their sounds to a pitch that would not rise above other street noises nor would they deem a restriction to sparsely used localities or to hours after work and before sleep—say 6 to 9 p.m.—sufficient for the exercise of their claimed privilege. Municipalities are seeking actively a solution. National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, Report No. 123, 1948. Unrestrained use throughout a municipality of all sound amplifying devices would be intolerable. Absolute prohibition within municipal limits of all sound amplification, even though reasonably regulated in place, time and volume, is undesirable and probably unconstitutional as an unreasonable interference with normal activities.

We have had recently before us an ordinance of the City of Lockport, New York, prohibiting sound amplification whereby the sound was cast on public places so as to attract the attention of the passing public to the annoyance of those within the radius of the sounds. The ordinance contained this exception:

'Section 3. Exception.—Public dissemination, through radio loudspeakers, of items of news and matters of public concern and athletic activities shall not be deemed a violation of this section provided that the same be done under permission obtained from the Chief of Police.'

This Court held the ordinance 'unconstitutional on its face,' Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 68 S.Ct. 1148, 1149 because the quoted section established a 'previous restraint' on free speech with 'no standards prescribed for the exercise' of discretion by the Chief of Police. When ordinances undertake censorship of speech or religious practices before permitting their exercise, the Constitution forbids their enforcement.3 The Court said in the Saia case, 334 U.S. at pages 560, 561, 68 S.Ct. at pages 1149, 1150:

'The right to be heard is placed in the uncontrolled discretion of the Chief of Police. He stands athwart the channels of communication as an obstruction which can be removed only after criminal trial and conviction and lengthy appeal. A more effective previous restraint is difficult to imagine.'

This ordinance is not of that character. It contains nothing comparable to the above quoted § 3 of the ordi- nance in the Saia case. It is an exercise of the authority granted to the city by New Jersey 'to prevent disturbing noises,' N.J.Stat.Ann., tit. 40:48—1(8), nuisances well within the municipality's power to control. The police power of a state extends beyond health, morals and safety, and comprehends the duty, within constitutional limitations, to protect the well-being and tranquility of a community.4 A state or city may prohibit acts or things reasonably thought to bring evil or harm to its people.

In this case, New Jersey necessarily has construed this very ordinance as applied to sound amplification.5 The Supreme Court said, 135 N.J.L. 64, 66, 50 A.2d 451, 452:

'The relevant provisions of the ordinance apply only to (1) vehicles (2) containing an instrument in the nature of a sound amplifier or any other instrument emitting loud and raucous noises and (3) such vehicle operated or standing upon the public streets,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
780 cases
  • Mannino, In re, Cr. 9005
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1971
    ...... In a primitive form it seems to have been first expressed in Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 57 S.Ct. 732, 81 L.Ed. 1066 (see discussion, Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 90, 69 S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513). Before long it became the 'preferred freedom.' It seemed analogous to the special place a ......
  • People v. Glaze, Cr. 21123
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 7, 1980
    ......236.) A higher standard of review is required because of the "preferred position" of freedom of speech in our system of ordered liberty. (Kovacs v. Cooper (1949) 336 U.S. 77, 88, 69 S.Ct. 448, 454, 93 L.Ed. 513, see also Burton v. Municipal Court, supra, 68 Cal.2d at pp. 690-691, 68 Cal.Rptr. ......
  • Mandel v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial Dist., Alameda County, OAKLAND-PIEDMONT
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 1969
    ......Louisiana, supra, 379 U.S. 536, 555, 85 S.Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed.2d 471 (dicta); Kovacs v. Cooper (1949) 336 U.S. 77, 85--89, 69 S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513 (upholding the constitutionality of an ordinance barring sound trucks from ......
  • Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 14, 1980
    ......v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 19 Cal.3d 294, 138 Cal.Rptr. 53, 562 P.2d 1302), sound trucks (Kovacs v. Cooper (1949) 336 U.S. 77, 69 S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513), street sales of goods or merchandise (Welton v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 18 Cal.3d 497, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • The Centrality of Exclusion: Legal Impediments to Keeping 'Undesirable' People and Uses Out of the Community
    • United States
    • Land use planning and the environment: a casebook
    • January 23, 2010
    ...are necessary to further significant governmental interests, are permitted by the First Amendment. See, e.g., Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (limitation on use of sound trucks); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (ban on demonstrations in or near a courthouse with the intent to obstruct justice)......
  • Do Not Knock? Lovell to Watchtower and Back Again
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 38-3, May 2010
    • May 1, 2010
    ...e.g. , FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978); Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dep’t., 397 U.S. 728, 738 (1970); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 86–87 (1949). 72 See Frisby , 487 U.S. at 484–85. 73 See Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. , 358 F.3d at 1232–33, cert. denied , 543 U.S. 812 (2004......
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 100 No. 1, September 2022
    • September 1, 2022
    ...U.S. at 390. (42.) See infra Part II. (43.) See Reed. 576 U.S. at 163-64 (2015). (44.) Id. at 163. (45.) Id. (46.) See Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 87-88 (1949) (finding no constitutional right "to gain the public's ears by objectionably amplified sound on the (47.) See. e.g., McCullen v.......
  • The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Freedom of Expression
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The No. 275-1, May 1951
    • May 1, 1951
    ...(1938). See also the re-marks of Justice Roberts in Schneider v.Irvington, 308 U. S. 147, 161 (1939).23 Concurring in Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 90 (1949).24 Ibid., at 96. See also Justice Frankfurter’sdissenting opinion in West Virginia StateBoard of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 62......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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