Donald Stahl v. City of St. Louis, Missouri
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16272
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Stahl, a member of the 9/11 Questions Group in St. Louis, demonstrated on the Park Avenue Overpass over I-44/I-55 to maximize exposure.
- During the demonstration, a sign read '911 was an inside job.'
- Police arrested Stahl and a companion for violation of § 17.16.270 after deeming the conduct to impede traffic.
- The ordinance prohibits demonstrations or speech on streets that cause pedestrians or vehicles to be impeded, without requiring a specific intent.
- Stahl was not ultimately charged after the summons were dismissed; he and his group began refraining from demonstrations in St. Louis.
- Stahl filed a facial § 1983 challenge; the district court granted summary judgment for the City, which this court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 17.16.270 fail fair notice under due process? | Stahl argues the ordinance does not fairly warn what is prohibited. | City contends the language clearly prohibits obstructive demonstrations. | Yes, unconstitutional for lack of fair notice. |
| Is there a mens rea requirement in the ordinance at issue? | Stahl asserts no mens rea is required, chilling speech regardless of intent. | City contends mens rea is not necessary for this offense. | Yes, violation rests on third-party reaction, contributing to unconstitutionality. |
| Does the ordinance excessively chill protected speech through vague notice? | Stahl argues the chilling effect on speech due to lack of clear notice. | City argues safety-focused TPM restrictions may regulate traffic without suppressing speech. | Yes, unconstitutional due to excessive chilling of First Amendment activity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. City of Chicago, 527 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1999) (due process requires fair notice of prohibited conduct)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (U.S. 2012) (laws must give fair notice of what is forbidden or required)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (warns against vague laws that chill expressive activity)
- NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1963) (First Amendment protections require space for speech)
- Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (context of public assembly and intent limits admissibility)
- Frye v. Kansas City, Mo. Police Dept., 375 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2004) (police actions must be evaluated for safety without undermining speech)
- Qwest Corp. v. Minnesota Pub. Util. Comm'n, 427 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2005) (due process requires fair notice in regulatory schemes)