State v. Peter
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 50
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellants were charged with disorderly conduct under Minneapolis Code § 385.90 for protesting outside Ribnick Fur in downtown Minneapolis.
- Protest involved signs, chanting, and statements about animal cruelty; they did not enter the store or threaten physical harm.
- Store owner testified protesters were loud for about a half hour; no disruption to customers or property was shown.
- Police charged appellants after neighbors and others claimed harassment; district court denied motions for acquittal and constitutionality challenges.
- Jury convicted appellants; on appeal, the court reverses, citing First Amendment protection and lack of fighting-words conduct.
- Court concludes the evidence is insufficient under a narrow, fighting-words-only reading of the ordinance and that the conduct was inextricably intertwined with protected speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under narrowly construed ordinance | Peter and Lawson argue speech is protected; conduct not fighting words. | State contends some conduct/words can be separated and punished. | Convictions reversed; insufficient evidence under narrow fighting-words standard. |
| Constitutionality of the ordinance as applied | Ordinance is overbroad/vague and sweeps protected protest within prohibitions. | Challenge was not timely and district court did not rule on facial validity. | Not decided on appeal; opinion suggests potential overbreadth but focuses on insufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lynch, 392 N.W.2d 700 (Minn.App. 1986) (limits disorderly conduct to fighting-words in protected-speech contexts)
- In re Welfare of S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 1978) (fighting-words standard; protected by First Amendment considerations)
- In re Welfare of W.A.H., 642 N.W.2d 41 (Minn.App. 2002) (juvenile language not constituting fighting words; protected speech)
- In re Welfare of M.A.H., 572 N.W.2d 752 (Minn.App. 1997) (protective limits on disorderly conduct where speech is not fighting words)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) (public-interest speech on matters of public concern; strong First Amendment protection)
- State v. Machholz, 574 N.W.2d 415 (Minn. 1998) (harassment statute unconstitutional as applied; expressive conduct linked to conduct)
- Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (8th Cir. 2010) (protected expressive conduct; police lacked probable cause when speech intertwined with protest)
- State v. Johnson, 282 Minn. 153 (1968) (early framing of fighting-words doctrine)