People v. Brown
| Citation | 287 N.Y. 154,38 N.E.2d 478 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BOHNKE. SAME v. BROWN. |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1941 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Suffolk County Court.
George Bohnke and Eloise Brown were convicted of violating Ordinance No. 28 of the Village of Southampton, Suffolk County, by the Court of Special Sessions of the Village of Southampton, Kendrick, J., and from a judgment of the Suffolk County Court, 175 Misc. 989, 27 N.Y.S.2d 241, affirming the convictions, the defendants, by permission, appeal.
Judgments affirmed.
Ordinance No. 28 of the Village of Southampton provides, in part, as follows: ‘No person shall enter upon any private residential property in the Village of Southampton, Suffolk County, New York, for the purpose of vending, peddling, or soliciting orders for any merchandise, device, book, periodical or printed matter whatsoever; nor for the purpose of soliciting alms, or a subscription or a contribution to any church, charitable or public institution whatsoever; nor for the purpose of distributing any handbill, pamphlet, tract, notice or advertising matter, nor for the purpose of selling or distributing any ticket or chance whatsoever, without the consent of the occupant of said premises previously given.’ Hayden C. Covington and Joseph F. Rutherford, both of Brooklyn, for appellants.
Dorothy Kenyon, of New York City, for American Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.
Fred J. Munder, Dist. Atty., of Huntington (Henry Tasker, of Grenport, of counsel), for respondent.
William B. Platt, Jr., Corp. Counsel, of Southampton, for Village of Southampton, amicus curiae.
Appellants were convicted of a violation of an ordinance of the village of Southampton, which ordinance makes any person guilty of disorderly conduct who, ‘without the consent of the occupant of said premises previously given,’ enters upon private residential property in the village for certain purposes, including ‘the purpose of distributing any handbill, pamphlet, tract, notice or advertising matter.’ The ordinance states that it is not to be construed to apply ‘to any person who has been a bona fide resident of the Village of Southampton, New York, for a period of at least six (6) consecutive months last past, nor to any person who has maintaied a place of business in the Village of Southampton for a period of at least six (6) consecutive months, prior thereto, or his duly authorized representative.’ The ordinance contains a ‘preamble’ to the effect that it was enacted pursuant to the village's police power and in order to protect its citizens against crime and preserve the private property, peace and comfort of the occupants of private residences in the village.
On the trial it was established, without dispute, that appellants, who are ordained ministers of their religion and authorized representatives of a publishing house or publishing department of that religion, and who are not within the exceptions of the ordinance as to residence or business place in the village, did, without the previous consent of any householders, circulate religious pamphlets from door to door in he village very early in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breard v. City of Alexandria, La
...481, 482, 182 So. 649; City of Alexandria v. Jones, 216 La. 923, 45 So.2d 79; Green v. Gallup, 46 N.M. 71, 120 P.2d 619; People v. Bohnke, 287 N.Y. 154, 38 N.E.2d 478; Green River v. Bunger, 50 Wyo. 52, 58 P.2d 456. Eleven states, on the other hand, have held such ordinances invalid. All of......
-
Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America, Inc.
... ... balanced against the recipient's right 'to be let alone' in places in which the latter possesses a right of privacy" (People v. Shack, 86 N.Y.2d 529, 536, 634 N.Y.S.2d 660, 658 N.E.2d 706, quoting Rowan v. U.S. Post Off. Dept., supra, at 736, 90 S.Ct. at 1490). In ... ...
-
Rowe v. City of Pocatello, 7632
... ... 12, sec. 2. This is a direct grant of police power from the people to the municipalities of the state, subject only to the [70 Idaho 349] limitation that such regulations shall not conflict with the general laws ... ...
-
Martin v. City of Struthers, Ohio
...trespassers without requiring that the householder give an explicit notice, as the instant ordinance testifies. See e.g. People v. Bohnke, 287 N.Y. 154, 38 N.E. 478. 13 Municipalities and the Law in Action (1943), National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, 373. We do not, by this referen......
-
A decade after Smith: an examination of the New York Court of Appeals' stance on the free exercise of religion in relation to Minnesota, Washington, and California.
...York Constitution); People v. Pierson, 68 N.E. 243, 246-47 (N.Y. 1903) (illustrating the use of New York's free exercise clause). (292) 38 N.E.2d 478 (N.Y. 1941). (293) See id. at 479. (294) See id. (relying on a number of Supreme Court decisions, one tenth circuit opinion, and only one sta......