People v. Pearl
321 N.Y.S.2d 986, 66 Misc. 2d 502, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1719 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Refusing to comply with a lawful police order to move constitutes a punishable offense, even if the underlying conduct causing the order was a minor obstruction that would not, by itself, sustain a conviction.
Facts:
- A group of demonstrators, including the defendant, gathered for a protest at 8:00 p.m.
- The demonstrators stood in and blocked a west crosswalk.
- This blockage caused a temporary inconvenience, forcing pedestrians to walk into the roadway to get around them.
- Police had established a designated area for the demonstrators by setting up barricades on the east side of the street.
- A police officer gave a lawful order for the demonstrators, including the defendant, to move from the crosswalk to the designated area across the street.
- The defendant and other demonstrators refused to comply with the officer's order to move.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a trial court with violating New York Penal Law § 240.20, subdivisions 5 (obstructing pedestrian traffic) and 6 (refusing to comply with a lawful police order).
- Following a trial, the defendant was convicted on both charges.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the convictions to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department.
- On appeal, the District Attorney (appellee) conceded that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for violating subdivision 5.
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 demonstrator's refusal to comply with a lawful police order to move to a designated area constitute an offense under New York Penal Law § 240.20(6), even if their initial obstruction of pedestrian traffic was insufficient to warrant a conviction under § 240.20(5)?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A demonstrator's refusal to comply with a lawful police order to move constitutes an offense under New York Penal Law § 240.20(6). The court found the evidence was insufficient to convict for obstructing pedestrian traffic under subdivision 5, as a 'temporary inconvenience' is not enough. However, the continued blocking of the crosswalk became a separate offense under subdivision 6 when the demonstrators refused the lawful police order to move. The court reasoned that such an order is a constitutional regulation of the time, place, and manner of assembly, which does not infringe on the rights of free speech when it is a reasonable, non-discriminatory measure to maintain public order. The order was reasonable because it merely required moving across the street to a designated area, not removing the demonstrators from the target of their protest.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between an act of protest that causes a minor inconvenience and the separate, chargeable offense of disobeying a lawful police order. It reinforces the authority of law enforcement to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on public assemblies to maintain order and public access. The case establishes that the legality of a police order and the refusal to obey it can be analyzed independently of the severity of the underlying conduct. This precedent strengthens the legal basis for managing protests and allows for prosecution based on non-compliance with police directives, rather than on the expressive act itself.
