People v. St. Clair

• Decision Date: 22 March 1968
• Citation: 56 Misc.2d 326,288 N.Y.S.2d 388
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. James ST. CLAIR, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 388

288 N.Y.S.2d 388

56 Misc.2d 326

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. James ST. CLAIR, Defendant.

Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, Part 7B.

March 22, 1968.

James St. Clair, in pro. per.

Burt Neuborne, New York City, New York Civil Liberties Union, of counsel, as amicus curiae.

AMOS S. BASEL, Judge.

The defendant is charged with violating Section 701.2 of the Rules for the Regulation of use of New York City Transit System. The section reads 'No person shall distribute and hand-bill or display any flag, banner, sign, or matter on or within the New York City Transit System.' The rules are promulgated pursuant to Section 1200 et seq. of the Public Authorities Law. Violation is punishable by fine of $25 or imprisonment for not longer than 10 days or both.

On December 20, 1967 at about 2:10 p.m. the defendant, a college student, received a summons from a police officer while distributing a leaflet on the southbound platform of the 34th Street station of the Independent Subway. This handbill headlined 'Peace on Earth' contained an anti-war poem by Mark Twain and a message urging the termination of the VietNam War.

Defendant testified he accepted this circular from another young man on the street. After reading it, he was moved by the spirit of Christmas to dispense this message, which had touched him, to others. He acquired an armful of leaflets and determined to pass them out at 34th Street where large crowds were Christmas shopping. When he reached his destination, he observed great numbers of people emerging from and entering the subway. He posted himself on the 34th Street southbound platform of the Independent System and undertook distribution, whereupon the police officer issued the summons.

Defendant seeks to have the summons dismissed upon the ground the regulation pursuant to which it was issued unconstitutionally abridged his right of free expression under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution.

Subdivision 16 of Section 1204 of the Public Authorities Law confers upon the Transit Authority, which operates the subways, the power to maintain a police force. Pursuant thereto, numerous regulations have been propagated, including the section under consideration.

The question here to be determined is does this regulation 'deny or unwarrantedly abridge * * * the opportunities for communication of thought and the discussion of public questions immemorably associated with resort to public places' (Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, p. 574, 61 S.Ct. 762, p. 765, 85 L.Ed. 1049).

The right to distribute leaflets in public places is no longer in dispute (Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155). The Supreme Court has recognized that 'distribution of circulars is essential to the poorly financed causes of little people.' (Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 146, 63 S.Ct. 862, 865, 87 L.Ed. 1313) Cheaply printed polemics individually circulated 'have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty.' (Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452, 58 S.Ct. 666, 669, 82 L.Ed. 949) This right becomes of increasing importance in our era of high-cost mass communications. We must preserve and protect the right of financially reduced advocates to communicate with others or we deliver opinion-making in our society, to those able to employ Madison Avenue technicians and to purchase prime television time. A cheap handbill can still be effective, as witness the manner in which this defendant was motivated. We must vigorously protect the rights of the little man to stir dissent and controversy. The Tom Paines seldom belong to the Establishment; Their protection is the essence of the First Amendment.

In 1939, the Supreme Court said in Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 515, 59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423 '* * * Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions * * *'

In a long series of subsequent cases, the ground rules were fixed. As the Court said, 'Although a municipality may enact regulations in the interest of public safety, health, welfare or convenience, these may not abridge the individual liberties secured by the Constitution to those who wish to speak, write, print or circulate information or opinion,' Schneider v. State, supra, 308 U.S. p. 160, 60 S.Ct. p. 150.

See also Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S.Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed.2d 471; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 78 S.Ct. 277, 2 L.Ed.2d 302; Niemotko v. State of Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 71 S.Ct. 325, 95 L.Ed. 267; Largent v. State of Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 63 S.Ct. 667, 87 L.Ed. 873; Jamison v. State of Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 63 S.Ct. 669, 87 L.Ed. 869; Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949; People v. Katz, 21 N.Y.2d 132, 286 N.Y.S.2d 839, 233 N.E.2d 845; People v. Strauss, 48 Misc.2d 1006, 266 N.Y.S.2d 431.

This rule also extends to the streets of a company town (Marsh v. State of Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276 90 L.Ed. 265); to preaching in a Federal Housing Project (Tucker v. State of Texas, 326 U.S. 517, 66 S.Ct. 274, 90 L.Ed. 274); to a railroad station (In Re Hoffman, 64 Cal.Rptr. 97, 434 P.2d 353) (Sup.Ct.); and most recently to the Port of New York...