 |
| "National Women's Party picketing the White House" by Harris & Ewing - Library of Congress |
Richard Z. Duffee, et. al., v. District of Columbia, Nos. 11-CT-1550+ (decided July 3, 2014)
The Players: Beckwith, McLeese,
Newman. Opinion by Judge McLeese. Mark Gladstone for
Appellants. Trial judge: Russell
Canan.
The Facts: 150 people marched from Lafayette Park to the White House sidewalk as part of an anti-war demonstration. Because they were a large group and stood chanting with locked arms they blocked the sidewalk, preventing people from having “free access to the White House sidewalk.” The police told the group to leave. 113 people remained, and all were arrested for failing to obey a lawful order (“FTO”) and “blocking passage.”
The Facts: 150 people marched from Lafayette Park to the White House sidewalk as part of an anti-war demonstration. Because they were a large group and stood chanting with locked arms they blocked the sidewalk, preventing people from having “free access to the White House sidewalk.” The police told the group to leave. 113 people remained, and all were arrested for failing to obey a lawful order (“FTO”) and “blocking passage.”
Issue: Is “breach of peace” an element of “blocking passage?”
Holding: No. The Court concluded that the plain language of D.C. Code § 22-1307 does not require a breach of the peace. The government must only show that an individual (1) “crowd, obstruct, or incommode” the use of a “sidewalk or the entrance of any public or private building”; and that he (2) continue his obstruction after law enforcement orders him to “cease the crowding, obstructing, or incommoding.”
The Court found that the legislative history of D.C. Code §
22-1307 supported its conclusion. Courts
interpreting an earlier version of the bill occasionally read a breach of the
peace requirement into the statute. But
in 2010, a working group* studying how to best revise the bill drafted new
language and stated that the new version should not contain a breach of the peace requirement. The D.C.
Council relied heavily on the working group’s report when it enacted a revised
statute. Although the Council altered some
of the proposed language, it explained the reason for each change and never suggested
that it intended to inject a breach-of-the-peace requirement into the statute.
*The working group was entitled: The Disorderly
Conduct Arrest Project Subcommittee of the Council for Court Excellence.
Of Note:
Of Note:
- At oral argument, Appellants attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Because Appellants did not brief the issue, the Court declined to reach it. (See FN 2)
- On appeal, the government conceded that the FTO and blocking passage charges merged, and the Court remanded for an entry of new judgments of conviction on the blocking passage charge. JB
No comments:
Post a Comment