Kovacs v. Cooper
336 U.S. 77 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may, as a valid exercise of its police power, constitutionally prohibit the use of sound amplification devices on public streets that emit "loud and raucous noises," as this is a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation that serves the significant government interest of protecting citizens' tranquility and privacy.
Facts:
- The City of Trenton, New Jersey, enacted Ordinance No. 430, which made it unlawful to operate a sound truck or amplifier on public streets if it emitted "loud and raucous noises."
- Charles Kovacs operated a sound truck on a public street in Trenton.
- A police officer, after hearing music broadcasting from the truck, located Kovacs.
- As the officer approached, the music stopped and Kovacs began speaking into the amplifier.
- Kovacs was using the sound apparatus to comment on a local labor dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Kovacs was charged and found guilty of violating Ordinance No. 430 in the police court of the City of Trenton.
- Kovacs appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which served as an intermediate appellate court, and that court upheld his conviction.
- Kovacs then appealed to the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, the state's highest court at the time.
- The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, being equally divided, affirmed the lower court's judgment.
- Kovacs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance that bans the use of sound amplification devices on public streets that emit "loud and raucous" noises unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
No. A municipal ordinance banning "loud and raucous" sound trucks from its streets does not violate the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the phrase "loud and raucous" is not unconstitutionally vague and has a common-sense meaning. Accepting the state court's interpretation that the ordinance only regulates excessively noisy amplifiers, it is not a total ban on sound trucks but a reasonable regulation of their use. Unlike the prior restraint found unconstitutional in Saia v. New York, this ordinance is a content-neutral exercise of the state's police power to protect the community's tranquility and well-being. The Court emphasized the intrusive nature of amplified sound, noting that an unwilling listener in their home is a captive audience who cannot easily escape the noise, justifying the city's intervention to protect privacy. This regulation leaves open ample alternative channels for communication, such as the human voice or pamphlets.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No. The ordinance is a constitutional means for the City of Trenton to deal with the "aural aggressions" of sound trucks. He argued against the concept of a "preferred position" for freedom of speech, deeming it a "mischievous phrase" that leads to mechanical jurisprudence. He reasoned that different forms of communication, such as sound trucks, raise unique issues not contemplated by the Framers and are not entitled to the same protection as the unaided human voice. So long as a legislature does not regulate the content of the speech, it is within its power to impose limits to safeguard "the steadily narrowing opportunities for serenity and reflection."
Concurring - Mr. Justice Jackson
No. The operation of mechanical sound-amplifying devices interferes with the quiet enjoyment of homes and the safe use of streets, and is therefore constitutionally subject to regulation or prohibition. He reasoned that freedom of speech for Kovacs does not include the freedom to use amplifiers to "drown out the natural speech of others." However, he agreed with the dissent that the ordinance appears to be an unconditional ban, not just a regulation of "loud and raucous" noise, and that the Court's decision effectively repudiates its prior holding in Saia v. New York. He concurred only for the reasons he stated in his dissent in the Saia case.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The ordinance as written and applied by the New Jersey courts is an absolute and unqualified prohibition of all sound amplification devices on public streets, which violates the First Amendment. Kovacs was convicted for simply using a sound truck, with no evidence presented that the noise was actually "loud or raucous." Upholding his conviction based on an interpretation of the ordinance that was not applied at trial is a violation of due process. The dissent argued that this absolute ban on a crucial medium of communication repudiates the holding in Saia v. New York and gives an unfair advantage to wealthy individuals and organizations who can afford mass media like newspapers and radio, while silencing those with fewer resources.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rutledge
Yes. The ordinance is unconstitutional. He agreed with Justice Black's reasoning that states can regulate but not altogether forbid sound trucks. He further argued that the deep division among the majority justices as to what the ordinance actually prohibits—some believing it's a total ban, others that it only bans "loud and raucous" noise—means that the law is so ambiguous as to violate due process. He stated that no person should be convicted under a statute when the judges upholding the conviction cannot agree on what crime was committed.
Analysis:
This case is significant for solidifying the "time, place, and manner" doctrine as it applies to amplified speech. By upholding a content-neutral ban on "loud and raucous" noise, the Court affirmed that the First Amendment does not provide an absolute right to use any means of communication at any time. This decision empowers municipalities to regulate noise pollution and protect citizen privacy from invasive forms of speech, drawing a crucial line between permissible regulation of conduct and impermissible censorship of content. It distinguishes this type of regulation from unconstitutional prior restraints, thereby providing a framework for balancing free speech rights with legitimate public interests like order and tranquility.
Unlock the full brief for Kovacs v. Cooper