927 N.Y.S.2d 592
Nassau County District Court2011Background
- Defendant Nicolas Pierre-Louis is charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.30(1).
- Supporting deposition describes voicemails to an ADA at the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office between Feb 22 and Apr 11, 2010, containing vulgar and accusatory language.
- Defendant contends the statements are constitutionally protected speech and cannot support a criminal conviction.
- Court analyzes First Amendment scope, citing Chaplinsky, Cohen, Brandenburg, Virginia v. Black, and related cases.
- Court concludes the voicemails are vulgar but not fighting words or true threats and, as applied to § 240.30(1), the statute is unconstitutional; charges are dismissed.
- The decision relies on Dietze’s overbreadth/content-based regulation concern and refuses to save the statute by narrowing its scope; expresses broader First Amendment concerns about criminalizing annoying or alarming speech
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 240.30(1) unconstitutional as applied to this defendant? | People would argue the statute criminalizes behavior that invades privacy and may be valid. | Pierre-Louis argues the statute is overbroad and infringes protected speech. | Unconstitutional as applied; charges dismissed. |
| Do the voicemails fall within fighting words or true threats? | Not explicit in the record; the statute covers communications likely to cause annoyance or alarm. | Messages are vulgar but not fighting words or true threats. | Speech not fighting words or true threats; supports invalidity of the statute as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (Sup. Ct. 1942) (fighting words doctrine; limits on unprotected speech)
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (abusive speech protected unless targeted to incite imminent unlawful action)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (Sup. Ct. 1969) (imminent-lawless-action standard for incitement)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (true threats doctrine)
- Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (content-based Regulations are presumptively invalid)
- R. A. V. v City of St. Paul, Minnesota, 505 U.S. 377 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (content-based restrictions on speech invalid)
- People v. Mangano, 100 N.Y.2d 569 (2003) (statute applied to certain calls was unconstitutional on facts)
- People v. Dietze, 75 N.Y.2d 47 (N.Y.2d 1989) (overbreadth and protection of speech; guiding standard)
- People v. Dupont, 107 A.D.2d 247 (1st Dept. 1985) (harassment statute overbreadth when applied to certain actions)