Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio 8212 1366

Decision Date05 November 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72,72
PartiesEdward NORWELL v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO. —1366
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Edward Norwell, on a plea of not guilty, was convicted of a violation of Cincinnati's disorderly conduct ordinance. The charge was that petitioner 'did unlawfully and wilfully conduct himself in a disorderly manner, with intent to annoy some person.' The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals. Further appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio was dismissed by that court sua sponte 'for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein.'

We are persuaded that the ordinance, as applied to this petitioner on the facts of his case, operated to punish his constitutionally protected speech. We therefore grant certiorari and reverse.

The ordinance, § 901—D4 of the city's Municipal Code, reads:

'No person shall wilfully conduct himself or herself in a noisy, boisterous, rude, insulting or other disorderly manner, with the intent to abuse or annoy any person . . ..'

Petitioner, 69 years of age and an immigrant 20 years ago, is employed by his son who manages and is part owner of a 'pony keg,' a small package liquor store. Petitioner works at the pony keg every evening and helps his son 'because it is very dangerous.' There have been break-ins at the store on several occasions and a former owner was killed there.

On Christmas night, 1971, the pony keg closed about 10:30. The son drove home, but petitioner 'wanted to take a walk and get home at 11:00 to hear the news.' Down the street he was approached by Officer Johnson, who had been notified that a 'suspicious man' was in the neighborhood of the pony keg. Officer Johnson testified that he approached petitioner and asked him if he lived in the area. Petitioner looked at him, 'and then he turned around and walked away.' The officer twice attempted to stop him, but each time petitioner threw off his arm and protested, 'I don't tell you people anything.' He did not run. Petitioner then was placed under arrest for disorderly conduct. Officer Johnson said he had to 'push the man approximately half a block to get him into the police car. He didn't understand why he was being arrested.'

Petitioner testified that he 'was far from the pony keg' when the officer drove up in his car and called out something which petitioner did not understand.

'He told me something, but I couldn't understand . . .. I said—I asked him, 'What do you want from me?' He said, 'Why are you on the street?' I said, 'I am walking on the street.' After then, he said, 'Where are you going?' I said, 'I go home.' After then, he didn't ask me anything. He was in a car. I continued to walk.'

The officer pursued petitioner and grabbed him. Petitione...

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 cases
  • Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior University
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 1985
    ...to briefly and vigorously challenge the legality of a police officer's command, relying on cases such as Norwell v. City of Cincinnati (1973) 414 U.S. 14, 94 S.Ct. 187, 38 L.Ed.2d 170. Those cases are concerned with whether criminal punishment can be imposed for the disorderly conduct of no......
  • Brown v. City of Greenwood, Civil Action No. 4:97cv87-D-B (N.D. Miss. 4/__/2001)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • April 1, 2001
    ...protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers."); Norwell v. Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14, 94 S.Ct. 187, 38 L.Ed.2d 170 (1973) (per curiam) (reversing conviction for disorderly conduct where defendant was "loud and boisterous," stating a person "is n......
  • State v. John W.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1980
    ...not be, "disorderly conduct" under the substantive law of Kentucky. 362 U.S. at 205-206, 80 S.Ct. at 629. In Norwell v. Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14, 94 S.Ct. 187, 38 L.Ed.2d 170 (1973), the Court held that a 69-year-old man who objected to detention by a police officer in a manner that was "hos......
  • Hill v. City of Houston, Tex., 84-2181
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 11, 1985
    ...125 (1975).39 Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 760, 94 S.Ct. 2547, 2563, 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974).40 Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14, 16, 94 S.Ct. 187, 188, 38 L.Ed. 170 (1973).41 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, im......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...720 Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U.S. 243, 27 S.Ct. 126, 51 L.Ed. 168 (1906), 1291, 1502 Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14, 94 S.Ct. 187, 38 L.Ed.2d 710 (1973), 1448 Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 93 S.Ct. 2804, 37 L.Ed.2d 723 (1973), 924 Norwood v. Horney, 853......
  • List of Cases Referenced
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 28-1, March 1975
    • March 1, 1975
    ...376 U.S.. 254 (1964) North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U.S. 156 (1973) Norwell v. Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14 (1973)O’Brien v. Skinner 414 U.S. 524 (1974)O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974)Old Dominion Branch No. 496, National Association of Letter Car......
  • Enjoining the constitution: the use of public nuisance abatement injunctions against urban street gangs.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 51 No. 2, January 1999
    • January 1, 1999
    ...libel law unconstitutional); see also Acuna, 929 P.2d at 631 (Mosk, J., dissenting). (100.) See, e.g., Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14, 16 (1973) (striking down a conviction for disorderly conduct that was based on a police officer's conclusion that "[h]e was annoying me") (alter......

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