Shawn McBride v. State of Indiana, 94 N.E.3d 703

Shawn McBride repeatedly demanded that the Clay County Prosecutor’s Office dismiss old traffic tickets and refused to leave after being told to do so on August 12 and August 16, 2016.
On August 12 McBride was escorted out after creating a disruption; on August 16 he returned, placed paperwork on the counter but loudly repeated demands and ignored at least fifteen requests to leave.
Deputies arrested McBride on August 16 for refusing to leave the Prosecutor’s office; the State charged him with two counts of criminal trespass (class A misdemeanors); other charges were later dismissed.
At trial the jury acquitted on the August 12 count but convicted on the August 16 count; the court sentenced him to 365 days with 40 days executed and probation.
McBride appealed, arguing his trespass conviction violated Article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution (free speech/responsibility clause), claiming his conduct was political speech and not an abuse of the right to speak.
The State argued waiver of the constitutional challenge for failure to raise a pretrial motion and argued McBride’s speech was not political and, even if it were, it was not materially burdened nor protected because it disrupted confidential prosecutorial functions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McBride preserved an Article 1, §9 challenge or waived it by not filing a pretrial motion	State: failure to file required pretrial motion under Ind. Code § 35-34-1-4 waives the constitutional challenge	McBride: appellate review of Article 1, §9 claim should be permitted despite lack of pretrial motion	Court acknowledged general waiver rule but exercised precedent permitting appellate consideration; addressed merits anyway
Whether the trespass conviction violated Article 1, §9 (freedom-and-responsibility)	McBride: his statements were political expression commenting on government action; criminal trespass here improperly restricted political speech and materially burdened his right to speak	State: speech was not political but demanding/abusive; even if political, it did not materially burden core political expression because it disrupted prosecutorial office functions and confidentiality	Court held speech was at best ambiguous/mixed (partly about his own conduct), applied rational-basis review, and concluded the State reasonably could find his conduct an abuse of the right to speak; conviction affirmed

Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (1993) (establishes Indiana’s freedom-and-responsibility framework under Article 1, §9 and analysis for expressive conduct)
Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363 (1996) (explains two-step inquiry and rationality review when expression is not clearly political)
State v. Economic Freedom Fund, 959 N.E.2d 794 (2011) (clarifies material-burden analysis for political speech under Article 1, §9)
Anderson v. State, 881 N.E.2d 86 (2008) (expression focused on speaker’s right to remain is not political speech)
Blackman v. State, 868 N.E.2d 579 (2007) (statements about right to be present can be ambiguous/dual in nature and not purely political)
Morse v. State, 593 N.E.2d 194 (1992) (recognizes appellate courts may address constitutionality of statutes even when issue was not timely raised)