People v. Dupont, 96 N.Y.2d 569 (2001)

Speech, even if crude or offensive, is protected when it occurs in the context of complaining about government actions, especially when directed to a forum established for such complaints.

Summary

Dupont left five messages on the Village of Ossining’s Parking Violations Bureau answering machine, complaining about tickets and village employees, using offensive language. She was convicted of aggravated harassment under Penal Law § 240.30(1). The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that while the messages were crude, they were made in the context of complaining about government actions, and therefore constituted protected speech. The court distinguished this case from prior cases involving harassing conduct, emphasizing that Dupont’s messages were related to government actions and directed to a complaint receiving system.

Facts

The Village of Ossining restricted overnight street parking to permit holders. Residents could leave messages on the Parking Violations Bureau’s answering machine to register guest vehicles. Dupont left five messages after hours, including complaints about parking tickets, criticisms of village employees, and offensive language. The messages mentioned license plate numbers and vehicles, along with invective and ill wishes towards the employees.

Procedural History

The People filed five informations charging Dupont with aggravated harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.30(1). A jury convicted Dupont on four of the five counts. The Appellate Term affirmed the convictions. A Judge of the Court of Appeals granted Dupont leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant’s messages, left on a government answering machine and containing complaints about government actions along with offensive language, constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, thus precluding a conviction for aggravated harassment under Penal Law § 240.30(1).

Holding

Yes, because the defendant’s messages, though crude and offensive, were made in the context of complaining about government actions on a telephone answering machine set up to receive public complaints, and therefore constitute protected speech.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from People v. Shack, where the conviction for telephone harassment was upheld because the defendant’s multiple calls constituted harassing conduct. Here, the court emphasized that Dupont’s messages, while offensive, were made in the context of complaining about government actions. The court noted that the answering machine was set up, among other purposes, to receive complaints from the public. The court held that Dupont’s messages did not fall within any of the classes of speech or conduct that could be permissibly proscribed. The court emphasized the importance of allowing citizens to voice concerns about government actions, even if the expression is crude or unpleasant. The court reasoned that punishing such speech would chill legitimate complaints and undermine the purpose of the complaint system. The court did not find any dissenting or concurring opinions.