Lexplug logoLexplug

People v. Pettigrew

Suffolk County District Court
69 Misc. 2d 985, 332 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2256 (1972)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Expressive conduct that recklessly creates a risk of public inconvenience by obstructing traffic is not protected by the First Amendment when the actor refuses to comply with a lawful and reasonable police order to disperse.


Facts:

  • The defendant, dressed as a turkey, along with another individual dressed as Santa Claus, engaged in a public demonstration.
  • During the demonstration, they made speeches and distributed literature criticizing various social and political issues.
  • Their activities caused a crowd of 75 to 150 people to gather on a public sidewalk.
  • The crowd blocked the sidewalk and part of the adjacent street, impeding both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
  • A police officer ordered the defendant to move on.
  • The defendant refused to comply with the officer's order.

Procedural Posture:

  • The defendant was arrested by police.
  • The defendant was charged in a trial court with disorderly conduct in violation of section 240.20 of the New York Penal Law.
  • The case proceeded to a trial on the merits before this court.

Locked

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 conviction for disorderly conduct, based on expressive activity that attracts a crowd, obstructs pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and includes a refusal to comply with a lawful police order to disperse, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?


Opinions:

Majority - John V. Vaughn, J.

No. A conviction for disorderly conduct under these circumstances does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that while the defendant's speech is constitutionally protected, the right of free speech is not absolute. The defendant's conduct recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience and alarm by obstructing public traffic, satisfying a key element of the disorderly conduct statute. Citing People v. Turner, the court emphasized that the refusal to obey a lawful and reasonable police order to disperse, issued to maintain public order and safety, transforms otherwise protected assembly into a statutory violation. The court distinguished this case from landmark Supreme Court decisions like Edwards v. South Carolina and Cox v. Louisiana, noting that those cases involved unconstitutionally broad statutes or suppression of unpopular views, whereas this case involves a content-neutral application of the law aimed at preventing public obstruction after a reasonable police warning was ignored.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that First Amendment rights are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. It establishes that the act of disobeying a lawful police order to disperse is a critical, independent factor that can render otherwise protected protest activity unlawful. The case provides a clear framework for analyzing disorderly conduct charges arising from protests, distinguishing between the protected content of speech and the unprotected conduct of obstructing public ways and defying reasonable police commands intended to maintain public order. This precedent guides lower courts in balancing free speech rights against the state's legitimate interest in ensuring public safety and traffic flow.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query People v. Pettigrew (1972) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for People v. Pettigrew