Stephen Munn v. City of Ocean Springs, MS
763 F.3d 437
5th Cir.2014Background
- Stephen Munn, president/manager of the Purple Pelican (a bar in Ocean Springs, MS), received a city citation after multiple anonymous noise complaints during an early-morning event; the citation was later dismissed and not prosecuted.
- Munn sued to enjoin enforcement of Ocean Springs’ noise ordinance and to have it declared unconstitutionally vague; the city removed the case to federal court.
- The district court denied preliminary injunction, then after limited discovery granted summary judgment for the City, concluding the ordinance is not void for vagueness; Munn appealed.
- The ordinance prohibits “unreasonable noise” that, among other things, “annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort … of a reasonable person of normal sensitivities” within audibility/perceptibility.
- Central legal dispute: whether the ordinance’s use of the term “annoys” renders the statute unconstitutionally vague, particularly in light of Coates v. City of Cincinnati and subsequent cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the word “annoys” makes the ordinance unconstitutionally vague | Munn: “annoys” is amorphous; Coates requires invalidation because citizens cannot know what conduct is criminal | City: ordinance uses an objective "reasonable person" standard, curing Coates-type vagueness | Court: Held not vague — reasonable-person objective standard satisfies due process |
| Whether Coates controls to invalidate any ordinance using “annoys” | Munn: Coates bars use of “annoys” because annoyance varies among individuals | City: Coates condemned subjective standards (who is annoyed), not the word itself when tethered to an objective standard | Court: Distinguishes Coates — problem was subjective referent (“persons passing by”), not the word “annoys” per se |
| Whether subsequent authority (e.g., Tanner) requires invalidation despite objective wording | Munn: Even with a reasonable-person test, enforcement will devolve to subjective officer judgment (Tanner) | City: Other courts have upheld similar wording when read objectively; reasonable-person standard tolerable in noise context | Court: Rejects Tanner’s approach; accepts that some police judgment is inevitable but constitutional here |
| Whether enforcement facts here affect facial vagueness ruling | Munn: Officer acted on anonymous complaints and warned despite not finding unreasonable loudness (shows subjectivity) | City: Enforcement practices do not change facial validity of the ordinance as written | Court: Notes troubling enforcement, but limits decision to facial validity; warns City to enforce objectively or risk different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971) (invalidated ordinance that prohibited conduct “annoying to persons passing by” as unconstitutionally vague)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (upheld a school-disturbance ordinance when given a limiting construction to avoid a broad, subjective standard)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (due process vagueness doctrine requires laws to give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice)
- Tanner v. City of Virginia Beach, 674 S.E.2d 848 (Va. 2009) (state court invalidated a noise ordinance using “annoys” despite an objective reasonable-person phrasing)