Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio 8212 1366, No. 72
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 94 S.Ct. 187,414 U.S. 14,38 L.Ed.2d 170 |
| Parties | Edward NORWELL v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO. —1366 |
| Docket Number | No. 72 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1973 |
v.
CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO.
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
Page 15
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keith v. Schuh, Civil Action No. 1:96cv39-D-D (N.D. Miss. 4/__/2001), Civil Action No. 1:96cv39-D-D.
...First Amendment 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," statin......
-
Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior University
...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 nonpr......
-
Hill v. City of Houston, Tex., No. 84-2181
...45 L.Ed.2d 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, resis......
-
Miller v. Civil City of South Bend, Nos. 88-3006
...protection. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987). See also, e.g., Norwell v. Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14, 94 S.Ct. 187, 38 L.Ed.2d 170 (1973) (insulting language to a police officer's face). Congress could not imprison anyone on account of words of endearment......
-
Keith v. Schuh, Civil Action No. 1:96cv39-D-D (N.D. Miss. 4/__/2001), Civil Action No. 1:96cv39-D-D.
...First Amendment 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," statin......
-
Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior University
...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 nonpr......
-
Hill v. City of Houston, Tex., No. 84-2181
...45 L.Ed.2d 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, resis......
-
Palma v. Atlantic County, Civ. A. No. 98-1971.
...his objection' to police conduct impermissibly punishes constitutionally protected speech") (quoting Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14, 16, 94 S.Ct. 187, 38 L.Ed.2d 170 (1973)). Thus, in this case, it is apparent that the arrest and prosecution of Palma "chilled" his protected Ther......
-
List of Cases Referenced
...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......