RICHARD Z. DUFFEE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
93 A.3d 1273
D.C.2014Background
- Appellants were arrested during a March 2011 anti-war demonstration near the White House and convicted of FTO under 18 DCMR § 2000.2 and blocking passage under D.C. Code § 22-1307.
- The protest involved about 150 demonstrators; the group blocked a sidewalk and impeded foot traffic near the White House.
- Park Service warned the group to disperse after perimeter was closed; 113 people remained and were arrested.
- Confronted with pretrial and bench-trial procedures, the trial court convicted each appellant of both offenses.
- On appeal, the District conceded that FTO and blocking passage convictions merged; the court then reversed the FTO convictions.
- The central issue was whether blocking passage requires proof of breach of the peace; the court held it does not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does blocking passage require breach of the peace? | Duffee argues breach is required (prior readings). | District contends no breach element is required by § 22-1307. | Blocking passage does not require breach of the peace. |
| Should FTO merge with blocking passage for double jeopardy purposes? | Appellants contend the offenses merge. | District concedes merger should occur. | FTO conviction reversed; remanded for judgments on blocking passage only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. United States, 620 A.2d 270 (D.C. 1993) (concession of merger under Double Jeopardy)
- Tetaz v. District of Columbia, 976 A.2d 907 (D.C. 2009) (breach-of-peace not invariably required under prior § 22-1307)
- Adams v. United States, 256 A.2d 563 (D.C. 1969) (breach-of-peace considered to avoid punishing innocents in some contexts)
- Williams v. District of Columbia, 419 F.2d 638 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (breach-of-peace considerations in disorderly conduct)
- Carter v. United States, 591 A.2d 233 (D.C. 1996) (interpretation aligned with plain language and legislative history)
- Robinson v. Georgetown Ctr. Condo, LLC, 39 A.3d 1286 (D.C. 2012) (legislative intent governs statutory interpretation)
- 1618 Twenty-First Tenants’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Phillips Collection, 829 A.2d 201 (D.C. 2003) (rejects inessential legislative-history interpolation)