Pueblo v. García Colón, 182 P.R. Dec. 129

Certiorari to review constitutionality of Art. 247(c) and its application when the victim is a police officer.
Facts: On Nov 15, 2006, Mario García Colón was stopped for a traffic violation; he insulted two police officers, calling them “charlatanes” and “corruptos.”
The sergeant issued a citation for a future appearance; García Colón later challenged the citation and a traffic-ticket review.
In May 2007, two counts of alteration to the peace under Art. 247 were filed based on García Colón’s expressions toward the officers; trial occurred Oct 14, 2008, resulting in a conviction for both counts.
The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals upheld the convictions; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address (i) speedy-trial concerns under Rule 64(n)(2) and (ii) the constitutionality of Art. 247(c) and its application to police.
The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the conviction for alteration of the peace, upheld the constitutionality of Art. 247(c), and remanded for sentencing consistent with its opinion; a concurrence and a separate concurrence/dissent accompanied the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of Art. 247(c) and fighting-words scope	Art. 247(c) is vague/overbroad and penalizes protected expression.	Legislation narrowly targets unprotected fighting words consistent with First Amendment.	Art. 247(c) is constitutional under governing First Amendment standards.
Application of Art. 247(c) to police as recipients	Expressions directed at police should be protected or treated with heightened scrutiny.	Police may be subject to penalties if expressions are fighting words.	Police may be victims of alteration to the peace when elements are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speedy-trial right under Rule 64(n)(2)	State delay violated 60-day deadline; delay was not justified.	Justified delays due to health of officer and lack of staff.	The Court affirmed that the delay violated the speedy-trial right and remanded accordingly; however, it sustained the conviction on other grounds? (Note: the majority sustained constitutionality but remanded on findings.)
Insufficiency of proof of mental state of officers	State failed to prove officers were in a state of peace prior to the incident.	State’s evidence showed officers were offended, supporting the subjective element.	Insufficiency of proof regarding the officers' mental state undermines conviction for alteration of the peace.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1942) (fighting words doctrine; limits on obscene or insulting speech)
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1972) (overbreadth/ vagueness concerns in fighting-words statutes)
Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1974) (oprobios/oppobious language; overbreadth analysis)
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1987) (criticism of police protected; fighting words context)
Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1973) (clear and present danger standard; imminent disorder)