*1 Hughes For vacation and remandment —Chief Justice and Justices Jacobs, Hall, Mountain, Sullivan, Pash- man and Clifford —7.
Opposed—-None. SHIELDS, DEREK THOMAS AKRIDGE AND THE BRONZE INC., A THE CORPORATION OF STATE OF NEW JER SEY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, BARRES, v. ANTHONY POLICE, NEWARK, CHIEF OF THE AND CITY OF DE FEND ANTS-RESPONDENTS. Argued May 21, 1974 Decided June 1974. Mr. Garrett M. Heher the cause for argued appellants, Smith, Stratton, Heher, (Messrs. &Wise Mr. attorneys; Petrino, M. Garrett Heher and Mr. Frank J. brief). on the Mr. Althear A. Lester the cause argued respondents, Donald (Mr. E. King, attorney).
Per Curiam. judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division.
Pashman, join I (dissenting). the dissent filed by my Mr. colleague Justice Clifford. I must, however, make it clear that I believe there is legitimate state interest of our appearance police officers. The public must be able to recognize sight law enforcement officer in the Indeed, “uniformed” division. presence uniformed officer been demonstrated activity. to deter criminal am satisfied of dress plays significant role police department. hand, On the other grooming In officials and different matters. my opinion, public *2 over-reacted employers, both and have public private, grossly to hair a styles. different There is scintilla of evidence the of “short hairs” support position camp pos- that the a sesses their studies superior aptitude attitude toward or a their greater at their than do proficiency employment hair” “long counterparts. a char-
It is the merit and gross injustice determine acter of a alone. Those us person by among his appearance such nonsense are steadfastly who continue to perpetuate with cope chang- self-delusion. Their reveling inability them- intransigence times is reflected their ing placing ac- a moral arbiter of what is selves the of sole position and and what is not. ceptable good It to me that appears many governmental superiors and employers simply exhibiting distaste for long styles and more. Our in life-style differences are as dis- nothing as our in religion and, tinct differences and there- politics, fore, we should able be to hold and un- express without due interference.
A should bear governmental employer the onus of jus- legitimate the state interest to establish tifying necessary of regulation and sustain this nature.
Clieeoed, J. (dissenting). say change, perhaps is bromidic It times this is a case [Bishop Colaw, where a bromide inis order. F. 2d 1971) (Aldrich, concurring)]. Order 71-15 Special of the Newark Police Department sets of “Standards for “hair Appearance” styles and facial worn growths” by municipal police officers.1 The Chan- cery Division sustained its the Order rea- validity, finding opinion Chancery 1The is set forth full in the Super. 557, (1972). Division at 118 N. J. 558-559 on its face “well within
sonable and scope respon- sibilities to those given charged running Newark N. J. Police Department.” Super. (1972). The substantially in an Appellate Division, opinion adopted today, Court this affirmed. holding department, many whose members are said to constitute “in * * * a respects organization,” military “proper legitimate interest in the of its members” and head regulation governing Amendment any facial hair “does not offend Pirst rights.” 122 N. J. 477-478 Super. 476, (1973). notion that the appearance
While I
accept
for the concern
very
officers
matter
may
justification
no
sufficient
Department,
legally
in this
style appears
Newark’s form of restriction on hair
*3
n — n
view,
for
ex-
critical
reasons
deficiency, my
record
The
“military
below.
to
pressed
analogy
organization,”
1
majority,
now
the
by
resorted to
both courts below and
by
constitutional
and
And
the
surely
inexact
unpersuasive.
find
easy dispatch.2
of with such
cannot
point
disposed
v. Barry,
in Dwen
follow the
of the court
approach
also
in which a
1973),
ado about we think there is a substantial constitutional issue by regulation plaintiff’s question length. raised government may integrity physical whether the interfere with require compliance the individual and appearance with its standard of demonstrating without some state interest rea- sonably requiring such [483 restriction on the individual. F. 2d at 1130]. Here only reason offered for order is a special need or, maintain uniformed Department its identity as witness, one expressed by “to achieve ap- analysis police force, develop- 3The is this: The civilian of recent ment, grew supplement private from a need citizen’s role in keeping peace. The efficient conduct affairs of its called for an organization disciplined with centralized administration rank file, practical and steps which were rather than administrative solutions creating military towards force. The essential to *4 police clearly type an effective quired force is of from re- different that military. in the unquestioning Instant obedience has been found essential to a training discipline in soldier designed action and his and its attendant is develop type such obedience. The same of instant un- questioning necessary police is not for obedience an effective force. military suggested organiza- Bather it tion and been that of model closely policeman must not be followed too as a frequently individually unlike a soldier and not acts on his own initiative subject supervision superiors. to the immediate his of Barry, supra, v. [Dwen at 1129. Citations and omitted]. footnotes ;”4 nowhere is pearance uniformity the need hair of reference in- style justified by state legitimate reasonably related to the I would have no terest regulation. all difficulty by at were the order demonstrably supported concerns, Town N. J. see Manco v. safety Irvington, of Div. 64 N. J. Super. 1973), aff’d b. (App. (1974), o. or by substantial or efficiency. considerations of discipline sure, There may, to be be other state interests. from record I any relationship this cannot determine But between so-called of of “uniformity appearance” any interests, these no evidence been in submitted having support thereof.
What the record does disclose is from the stipulation Police Director Newark City of that Ab- plaintiff aas was not ridged performance policeman any way affected by his personal appearance which was concededly violation of the order. The trial noted in his judge opinion “the growth of [Akridge’s] face is not con- flict the order any extreme or I have way. startling seen him court on those occasions he the im- gave pression of 118 N. J. 561. being well-groomed.” Super, at While the officer and hearing the trial court surely were it, bound by there was testimony uncontradicted at ad- ministrative by fellow hearing, two officers whose given 4Contrary not, course, to this assertion the does un bring appearance. dertake about or “sameness” Bather, length, adornments, it sets outer limits for hair with certain e., beards, goatees, tails,” absolutely prohibited. i. “duck Presumably only way identity would achieve by way requirement clean, be the head be shaved in defer- growth, to those whom nature has denied a natural or unlimited ence deprived hairgrowing the less drastic alternative those powers style wig, wear the same fashioned to some to which wigless obliged likewise to adhere. opinions prob And while none of the briefs or herein adverts to the lem, offing equal protection argument there lurks in the an when a length regulation sought applied, is to be or a waiver therefrom granted, growing to one of the numbers of female officers. Cloncs, 1970). See Crews F.
271 credibility unchallenged, was aided Akridge was his in his his duties as a appearance performance policeman District; the South said he felt his Akridge appearance * * him with I’m helped “to relate the people serving While plaintiffs’ Complaint Verified is couched “equal terms,5 protection” does “ar it charge regulation and has relation bitrary” “no [Akridge’s] obligation duties or a are performance as officer.” The allegations issue, thus sufficient substantive due project process which in my view is the on the case ground turns.6 which the record us
On before has not been justified. face, It Void in any is not defective or on its future as defendants contest would validity its require to sustain need the burden genuine public establishing for the Order. a fine on Special plain- The order imposing tiff should Akridge be vacated. 5Paragraph Complaint 6 of the Verified reads as follows: requirements against of Order on their face 71-15 discriminate
Plaintiff DEREK THOMAS AKRIDGE and black members of the police department prohibition against bushy since the hair and mus- obviously designed policemen [sic] taches are to restrict black while policemen seldom, ever, charged having the white if bushy further, predominant hair. And now in the black community bushy appears is natural or it whether on face on the black head. So officers restricted are way white officers not. 6Again from Dwen: may guarantee right We base under the Due Process liberty which, broadly Clause of “a rational continuum speaking, arbitrary imposi includes freedom from all substantial ” * ** purposeless Ullman, tions and restraints. Poe 367 U. S. 543, 497, 1752, 1777, (1961) (Harlan, 81 S. Ct. 6 L. E. 2d 989 dissenting). Wade, 113, 705, 726, Roe v. 410 U. S. S. Ct. Cf. (1973) ; California, L. Ed. Rochin v. 342 U. S. S. Ct. (1952). liberty composed simply L. Ed. 183 Personal is only of freedoms held to be fundamental but includes the free significant personal dom to and act on less decisions without make arbitrary government right interference. Bimitation of re quires showing public some [483 1130]. need. F. 2d at *6 might suppose turning I robots insist that a nation bent on out pigtails. every every have a But crew female wear male cut pursuit happiness,” expressed “life, liberty, the ideas and the' specific Independence, definition the. Declaration later found expression itself, including the Constitution freedom of of course privacy. wide zone of flourish, supposed guarantees idiosyneracies permitted I had those especially they image personality when and his concern of one’s government philosophy [Ferrell v. towards and his fellow men. Dallas Independent District, L. Ed. School 393 U. S. S. Ct. dissenting certiorari.)). (1968) (Douglas, 2d 125 from denial reverse. Hughes Hall, For Justice Justices affirmance —Chief
Mountain and Sullivan —4. Pashman For and Clifford —2. reversal —Justices