People v. Katz, 21 N.Y.2d 103 (1967)

A statute prohibiting street obstructions is unconstitutional if its broad language grants law enforcement officers excessive discretion in determining what constitutes an obstruction, leading to potential arbitrary enforcement and infringement on First Amendment rights.

Summary

Elliot Katz was convicted of violating a New York City Administrative Code provision prohibiting street obstructions after setting up a table with anti-Vietnam War pamphlets. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. The court reasoned that the statute’s broad language, prohibiting any obstruction “whatsoever,” provided insufficient standards for enforcement, granting police officers excessive discretion and creating a risk of arbitrary application, which could suppress free speech. The Court emphasized that while municipalities can regulate public streets, such regulations must be narrowly drawn to avoid infringing on constitutional rights.

Facts

Elliot Katz, a college student, set up a small card table at a street corner in Queens. The table displayed a sign protesting the Vietnam War and contained pamphlets. Katz encouraged passersby to write letters to their representatives expressing their views on the war. He was subsequently arrested and convicted under section 692h-1.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which prohibits obstructing any street with any article or thing.

Procedural History

Katz was convicted at the trial level. He appealed, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. Katz then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether section 692h-1.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which prohibits obstructing any street with any article or thing, is unconstitutional on its face because it is overly broad and grants law enforcement officials excessive discretion, thereby potentially infringing on First Amendment rights.

Holding

Yes, because the statute’s broad prohibitive language, lacking defined standards for violations, renders it susceptible to arbitrary enforcement and infringes upon the exercise of freedom of speech.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found the statute unconstitutional because its prohibition of any obstruction “whatsoever” gave police officers too much discretion in deciding what constitutes a violation. The court emphasized that the police officer’s testimony showed that not all obstructions were treated equally. The court cited several Supreme Court cases to support its holding.

The court referenced Cox v. Louisiana, where a statute prohibiting all willful obstructions was deemed unconstitutional because it allowed officials to determine which expressions of view would be permitted. Similarly, in Thornhill v. Alabama, a statute prohibiting all picketing was struck down due to its susceptibility to arbitrary enforcement. The Court also cited Saia v. New York, where an ordinance requiring permission from the Chief of Police to use sound trucks was deemed unconstitutional because it lacked standards for issuing permits.

The court noted that streets have historically been recognized as a proper place for the dissemination and exchange of ideas. While municipalities can enact legislation promoting general convenience on public streets, statutes that are overly broad and subject to discriminatory application impermissibly infringe on freedom of speech. The court stated, “Where a statute is couched in such broad language that it is subject to discriminatory application, the resulting infringement on the exercise of freedom of speech far outweighs the public benefit sought to be achieved.”

The court concluded that a narrowly drawn ordinance regulating street activities could achieve public convenience without sacrificing individual constitutional rights or the public’s right to free discussion. Because the statute used total prohibition rather than reasonable regulation, the court deemed it unconstitutional.