STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDALL JAY DUGAN, Defendant and Appellant.
No. DA 11-0494.
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA
Decided February 19, 2013
Rehearing Denied March 29, 2013
2013 MT 38 | 369 Mont. 39 | 303 P.3d 755
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Tammy A. Hinderman (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Helena; Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney, Erin Murphy, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman.
JUSTICE COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Randall Jay Dugan appeals from an order of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denying his motion to dismiss a charge of using obscene, lewd, and profane language in violation of the Privacy in Communications statute,
ISSUES
¶2 Dugan raises the following three issues on appeal:
¶3 1. Did the State violate Dugan‘s right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution when it charged him with violating the Privacy in Communications statute,
¶4 2. Is the Privacy in Communications statute,
¶5 3. Is the Privacy in Communications statute,
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶6 In the lower court proceedings, the Justice Court and District Court relied on the facts as set forth in the parties’ briefs concerning Dugan‘s motion to dismiss. Our recitation of the facts is similarly taken from briefing before these courts.
¶7 On October 21, 2009, Dugan visited the office of the Gallatin County Victim Assistance Program (Victim Services) and requested assistance with filling out and filing paperwork for obtaining an order of protection against the mother of his children, who was about to be released from prison. Victim Services is a joint effort of Gallatin County, the City of Bozeman, and the private nonprofit Network Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. It is located in the Law and Justice Center in Bozeman, Montana. The office door is locked and controlled by a video-monitored entry system. Dugan was not allowed to enter the office because he had been loud and disruptive in the past. An employee of Victim Services, Jan Brownell, informed Dugan that the person with whom he needed to speak, Krystal Redmond-Sherrill, was not in the office at that time. Brownell told Dugan to call Redmond-Sherrill and make an appointment to discuss the order of protection.
¶8 On October 28, 2009, Dugan contacted Gallatin County Dispatch to attempt to obtain an order of protection. Dispatch contacted Deputy Mayland of the Gallatin County Sheriff‘s Office and asked him to get
¶9 Later that same day, Redmond-Sherrill contacted Deputy Mayland and reported that Dugan had just called her. Once again, Dugan requested assistance obtaining an order of protection. When Redmond-Sherrill informed Dugan that she could not help him and suggested that he obtain the necessary paperwork directly from the clerk of court, Dugan became aggressive and agitated. Dugan continued to argue with Redmond-Sherrill, and called her a “fucking cunt” as he hung up the phone. When Redmond-Sherrill described the conversation to Deputy Mayland, her voice was shaky and soft and he believed she was about to cry. Brownell observed that Redmond-Sherrill was visibly upset following the conversation. However, Redmond-Sherrill reported that Dugan did not threaten her or anyone else in the office. Redmond-Sherrill told Deputy Mayland that Dugan was “just really upset that-that [she wasn‘t] going to hand him an order of protection ... and basically wasn‘t getting what he was wanting out of that conversation.”
¶10 Deputy Mayland issued a citation to Dugan for violating the Privacy in Communications statute. On the citation, Deputy Mayland wrote that Dugan “called victim on telephone and used obscene, lewd and profane language, offending the victim.”
¶11 Dugan appeared with counsel in Gallatin County Justice Court and filed a motion to dismiss. In his motion, Dugan argued that the charge against him violated his free speech rights under the Montana and United States Constitutions, and that the Privacy in Communications statute was unconstitutionally vague. The State opposed the motion. The Justice Court denied Dugan‘s motion to dismiss with no supporting analysis in the record and without providing Dugan an opportunity to file a reply brief. Following the Justice Court‘s denial of his motion, Dugan entered a plea of nolo contendere. Dugan was sentenced to 180 days in jail with all but five
¶12 At the District Court, Dugan once again filed a motion to dismiss. Dugan contended that the charges against him violated his free speech rights, and that the Privacy in Communications statue was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The District Court determined that Dugan‘s utterance to Redmond-Sherrill constituted unprotected speech in the form of “fighting words.” The District Court further concluded that the Privacy in Communications statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Therefore, the District Court denied Dugan‘s motion to dismiss. Dugan appeals the District Court‘s decision.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶13 We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case. State v. LeMay, 2011 MT 323, ¶ 27, 363 Mont. 172, 266 P.3d 1278.
¶14 This Court‘s review of constitutional questions is plenary. Walters v. Flathead Concrete Prods., 2011 MT 45, ¶ 9, 359 Mont. 346, 249 P.3d 913. The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law, and we review a district court‘s legal conclusions for correctness. Walters, ¶ 9.
DISCUSSION
¶15 Did the State violate Dugan‘s right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution when it charged him with violating the Privacy in Communications statute,
¶16 The statute under which Dugan was charged is
45-8-213. Privacy in communications. (1) Except as provided in
69-6-104 , a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely:(a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend, communicates with a person by electronic communication and uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, suggests a lewd or lascivious act, or threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person. The use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or the making of a threat or lewd or lascivious suggestions is prima facie evidence of an intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend.
(4) “Electronic communication” means any transfer between persons of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system.
¶17 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution both protect the right to free speech. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.” Montana is bound to the guarantees of the First Amendment by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. City of Whitefish v. O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. 433, 438, 704 P.2d 1021, 1024 (1985) (citing Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625 (1925)). Article II, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution states that “[n]o law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression.” Additionally, under Article II, Section 7, “[e]very person shall be free to speak ... whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty.”
¶18 The right to free speech is a fundamental personal right and “essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.” St. James Healthcare v. Cole, 2008 MT 44, ¶ 26, 341 Mont. 368, 178 P.3d 696 (quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 503-04, 104 S. Ct. 1949, 1961 (1984)). The “vast majority” of speech enjoys constitutional protection. State v. Lance, 222 Mont. 92, 102, 721 P.2d 1258, 1265 (1986). However, neither the First Amendment nor Article II, Section 7, provide unlimited protection for all forms of speech. St. James Healthcare, ¶ 29. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to
truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.
Chaplinsky v. N.H., 315 U.S. 568, 571-72, 62 S. Ct. 766, 769 (1942) (internal quotations omitted). The District Court relied on the “fighting words” categorical exception to conclude that Dugan‘s speech was not protected by the First Amendment.
A. The “Fighting Words” Doctrine and the United States Supreme Court
¶19 The United States Supreme Court first declared that “fighting words” is a category of speech not protected by the First Amendment in Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 571-72, 62 S. Ct. at 769. Chaplinsky was a Jehovah‘s Witness preacher who caused a disturbance after distributing religious literature on public streets and denouncing all religion as a “racket.” Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 569-70, 62 S. Ct. at 768. A police officer escorted Chaplinsky to the police station, and Chaplinsky told the officer “[y]ou are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 569, 62 S. Ct. at 768. Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that stated as follows:
No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.
Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 569, 62 S. Ct. at 768. The United States Supreme Court upheld Chaplinsky‘s conviction, holding that his speech constituted “fighting words,” which can be prevented and punished without raising any First Amendment problems. Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 571-72, 62 S. Ct. at 769.
¶20 The Court defined “fighting words” as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572, 62 S. Ct. at 769. “The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight.” Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 573, 62 S. Ct. at 770. The Court noted that the purpose of the statute was
¶21 Since the Chaplinsky decision in 1942, the United States Supreme Court has never again upheld a conviction based on the “fighting words” categorical exception. The Supreme Court has reversed the conviction each time it has reviewed a case involving “fighting words,” but it has not overturned Chaplinsky. Therefore, “fighting words” remain a narrow and limited category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment. Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1002 (3d. ed., Aspen Publishers 2006).
¶22 A review of post-Chaplinsky Supreme Court decisions reveals the limited scope of the “fighting words” categorical exception. In Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 89 S. Ct. 1354 (1969), the Court reversed the malicious mischief conviction of a man who had burned a flag on a public street and declared “[w]e don‘t need no damn flag” in response to the assassination of a civil rights leader. The Court held that “[t]hough it is conceivable that some listeners might have been moved to retaliate upon hearing appellant‘s disrespectful words, we cannot say that appellant‘s remarks were so inherently inflammatory as to come within that small class of ‘fighting words’ which are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.” Street, 394 U.S. at 592, 89 S. Ct. at 1365.
¶23 The Court clarified in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S. Ct. 1780 (1971), that words must be directed to a specific person and likely to provoke a violent response from the hearer to constitute unprotected “fighting words.” In Cohen, a man was convicted of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” in the Los Angeles County Courthouse. Cohen, 403 U.S. at 16, 91 S. Ct. at 1783-84. The Court reasoned that the words on the jacket were not “fighting words” because “[n]o individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant‘s jacket as a direct personal insult.” Cohen, 403 U.S. at 20, 91 S. Ct. at 1786. The words on the jacket were not “directed to the person of the hearer,” and therefore were not “fighting words.” Cohen, 403 U.S. at 20, 91 S. Ct. at 1785. Applying this same reasoning, the Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 409, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 2542 (1989), reversed the conviction of a protester who burned a flag, holding that his conduct did not fall within the small class of fighting words because
¶24 The Supreme Court has often invalidated statutes prohibiting “fighting words” as unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. In Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103 (1972), a war protester stated the following to a police officer: “White son of a bitch, I‘ll kill you,” “I‘ll choke you to death,” and “if you ever put your hands on me again, I‘ll cut you all to pieces.” Gooding, 405 U.S. at 520 n. 1, 92 S. Ct. at 1105 n. 1 (internal quotations marks omitted). The Court overturned the protester‘s conviction for violating a statute that prohibited the use of “opprobrious or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace,” holding that the language of the statute sweeps too broadly and could be used to punish speech that does not constitute “fighting words.” Gooding, 405 U.S. at 527-28, 92 S. Ct. at 1108-09. Following its decision in Gooding, the Court reversed the conviction of a man who used the words “mother fucker” at a school board meeting to describe the teachers, the school board, the town, and the country. Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901, 92 S. Ct. 2479 (1972). As Gooding and Rosenfeld illustrate, “fighting words” laws will only be upheld if they are narrowly tailored to apply to speech which is not protected by the First Amendment. Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies at 1004.
¶25 The Supreme Court‘s more recent decisions discussing fighting words demonstrate that even when narrowly drawn, “fighting words” statutes will not be upheld unless they are content neutral. See R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992). In R. A. V., a teenager who allegedly burned a cross in the yard of a black family‘s home was charged under a bias-motivated crime ordinance which prohibited placing a symbol, such as a burning cross, on private property with knowledge that it would arouse “anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” R. A. V., 505 U.S. at 379-80, 112 S. Ct. at 2541. Though the Minnesota Supreme Court construed the statute in a way that would only reach “fighting words,” the Court held that the statute was facially unconstitutional because it prohibited otherwise permissive speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses. R. A. V., 505 U.S. at 381, 112 S. Ct. at 2542. In its discussion of “fighting words,” the Court stated:
It is not true that “fighting words” have at most a “de minimis”
expressive content, or that their content is in all respects “worthless and undeserving of constitutional protection;” sometimes they are quite expressive indeed. We have not said that they constitute “no part of the expression of ideas,” but only that they constitute “no essential part of any exposition of ideas.”
R. A. V., 505 U.S. at 384-85, 112 S. Ct. at 2543-44 (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). The Court went on to explain that “the exclusion of ‘fighting words’ from the scope of the First Amendment simply means that, for purposes of that Amendment, the unprotected features of the words are, despite their verbal character, essentially a ‘nonspeech’ element of communication,” and are therefore analogous to a “noisy sound truck.” R. A. V., 505 U.S. at 386, 112 S. Ct. at 2545.
¶26 Despite the narrowness of the categorical exception for “fighting words,” the Supreme Court has made clear that First Amendment concerns do not prevent a state from outlawing speech that constitutes a “true threat.” See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 123 S. Ct. 1536 (2003). The Court in Black reviewed whether a Virginia statute that banned cross burning with “an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons” and made any cross burning “prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons” violated the First Amendment. Black, 538 U.S. at 347-48, 123 S. Ct. at 1541-42. The Court determined that cross burning performed with an intent to threaten or intimidate is not protected by the First Amendment when it constitutes a “true threat.” Black, 538 U.S. at 359-60, 123 S. Ct. at 1547-48. “‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Black, 538 U.S. at 359, 123 S. Ct. at 1548. However, the Court invalidated the prima facie provision as unconstitutionally overbroad and held that it created an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas. Black, 538 U.S. at 364-65, 123 S. Ct. at 1550-51. The Court concluded that the prima facie evidence provision impermissibly allowed arrest, prosecution, and conviction of a person based solely on the fact of cross burning itself, which fails to distinguish between cross burning performed with an intent to threaten or intimidate and cross burning performed for other possibly permissible reasons. Black, 538 U.S. at 365-66, 123 S. Ct. at 1550-51.
¶27 When evaluating the scope of protection afforded to Dugan‘s speech, we must consider the First Amendment concerns in light of the Supreme Court‘s historically narrow application of the “fighting words” categorical exception.
¶28 Montana has demonstrated a greater willingness to uphold convictions based on “fighting words.” Montana cases discussing free speech rights and “fighting words” have arisen out of charges for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, and intimidation. These cases have often involved speech directed at police officers.
¶29 In City of Whitefish v. O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. 433, 435-36, 704 P.2d 1021, 1022-23 (1985), a police officer heard “loud hollering” at around 2:00 a.m. and went to investigate. The officer approached O‘Shaughnessy and his group of friends on a city street and asked them to “hold it down.” O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 436, 704 P.2d at 1023. O‘Shaughnessy told the officer that he could not “hold it down” because it was such a “beautiful day.” O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 436, 704 P.2d at 1023. After asking O‘Shaughnessy to “keep it down” several more times and warning him of a possible arrest, O‘Shaughnessy entered the back of the patrol car and was asked to get out. O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 436, 704 P.2d at 1023. O‘Shaughnessy exited the vehicle, then re-entered the car. O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 436, 704 P.2d at 1023. When the officer refused to shake hands with O‘Shaughnessy, O‘Shaughnessy stated: “Well, [m.f.], I will holler and yell when and wherever I want if I want to.” O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 436, 704 P.2d at 1023. O‘Shaughnessy was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace under a Whitefish municipal ordinance, and was convicted following a jury trial. O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 434, 704 P.2d at 1022.
¶30 O‘Shaughnessy challenged his conviction as a violation of his free speech rights, and also argued that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 439, 704 P.2d at 1025. This Court held that O‘Shaughnessy‘s speech constituted unprotected “fighting words” pursuant to Chaplinsky. O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 438-39, 704 P.2d at 1024. We rejected the vagueness and overbreadth challenges, concluding that the ordinance was narrowly construed to only apply “to words that have a direct tendency to violence and which are willfully and maliciously uttered.” O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 442-43, 704 P.2d at 1027.
¶31 Later that same year, the Court decided another “fighting words” case, City of Billings v. Batten, 218 Mont. 64, 705 P.2d 1120 (1985). In Batten, an argument broke out between neighbors and Batten called his neighbor “a communist government worker, no good son-of-a-bitch, chickenshit, and m---r” and stated: “Fight me. Hit me. You have a golf club. Come on. I want to fight you.” Batten, 218 Mont. at 67, 705 P.2d
¶32 In State v. Lance, 222 Mont. 92, 721 P.2d 1258 (1986), a defendant challenged his conviction for intimidation under
¶33 This Court‘s most recent “fighting words” case involved a disturbing the peace charge arising from a confrontation with a police officer. State v. Robinson, 2003 MT 364, 319 Mont. 82, 82 P.3d 27. Robinson was crossing an intersection in front of a police car when he glared at the waiting police officer and called him a “fucking pig.” Robinson, ¶ 3. The officer parked his car and approached Robinson. Robinson, ¶ 4. The officer asked Robinson if there was anything he wanted to talk about, to which Robinson replied “[f]uck off, asshole.”
If the statements in question had been uttered in the context of a political rally or protest, free speech concerns might well prevail. However, we fail to see how randomly goading a police officer by calling him a “f****** pig” adds to our constitutionally-protected social discourse.
¶34 Though this Court has addressed “fighting words” in other contexts, it has never discussed this categorical exception in connection with Montana‘s Privacy in Communications statute,
C. The District Court Erred in Deeming Dugan‘s Speech “Fighting Words”
¶35 The District Court relied on Chaplinsky, Robinson, and O‘Shaughnessy in determining that Dugan‘s statement to Redmond-Sherrill constituted “fighting words.” The District Court reasoned that Dugan‘s speech was “inherently inflammatory,” was not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, and of “such slight social value” that any benefit was “clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
¶36 Dugan argues that his words were not “fighting words” because they were not uttered in a public place or in a face-to-face setting. Furthermore, Dugan contends that his speech created no danger of an imminent breach of the peace. The State counters that Dugan‘s statement inflicted injury by its very utterance as “the equivalent of a verbal sucker punch in the face.” The State asserts that Dugan‘s words were inherently likely to evoke a violent reaction, and the fact that the speech occurred during a telephone call does not limit its qualification as “fighting words.”
¶37 All of the “fighting words” cases relied upon by the District Court
¶38 Other courts have recognized the proximal limitations of the “fighting words” doctrine and have refused to extend it beyond face-to-face communication. In Anniskette v. State, 489 P.2d 1012, 1013 (Alaska 1971), a man was charged with disorderly conduct for calling an Alaska State Trooper on his home telephone and complaining at length about the trooper‘s ineffectiveness and lack of qualifications. The caller referred to the trooper as a “no good God-damn cop.” Anniskette, 489 P.2d at 1013 n. 1. The Alaska Supreme Court determined that the caller‘s telephonic communication did not fall within the category of “fighting words” because the “time necessary for the officer to travel from his residence to that of the defendant should have allowed enough cooling off so that any desire on the part of the officer to inflict violence on the defendant should have been dissipated.” Anniskette, 489 P.2d at 1014-15. The Court dismissed the charges against the caller after holding that the caller‘s speech was entitled to First Amendment protection. Anniskette, 489 P.2d at 1015-16.
¶39 Courts have even refused to classify speech as “fighting words” when the communication occurs in person but the speaker and the addressee are not in close physical proximity. In Hershfield v. Commonwealth, 417 S.E.2d 876 (Va. App. 1992), a man was convicted of violating a Virginia statute that prohibits abusive language after he told his neighbor to “go f__ yourself.” The speaker was standing in his yard two houses down the street from the addressee when he uttered
¶40 The Minnesota Supreme Court suggested an even narrower application of the face-to-face requirement in In re Welfare of S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 1978). In S.L.J., a 14-year-old girl was questioned by two police officers who had just apprehended some teenage boys in the area. S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d at 415. After asking her some questions, the officers urged her to hurry home because it was past her curfew. S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d at 415. The girl headed down an alley and walked until she was somewhere between 15 and 30 feet away from the squad car, at which point she turned around and said “fuck you pigs.” S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d at 415. The officers exited their vehicle and arrested the girl for disorderly conduct. S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d at 415. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the girl‘s disorderly conduct conviction, holding that her words were not “fighting words” because they were “spoken in retreat from more than 15 feet away rather than eye-to-eye, [and] there was no reasonable likelihood that they would tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace or to provoke violent reaction by an ordinary, reasonable person.” S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d at 420.
¶41 In light of these cases, and the principles underlying the “fighting words” doctrine and its intersection with free speech rights, many authorities on the subject have concluded that:
Insulting language must be spoken in close physical proximity to the addressee to be considered fighting words. Otherwise, the burden is on the addressee to “cool off.” Thus, insults over the telephone may never constitute fighting words because the time necessary to initiate violence with the caller should be enough to cool the temper of the average person.
Michael J. Mannheimer, The Fighting Words Doctrine, 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1527, 1554 (1993); see also Burton Caine, The Trouble with
¶42 We agree with the proposition that “there is little likelihood of an immediate breach of the peace when one can abruptly hang up the receiver.” Walker v. Dillard, 523 F.2d 3, 5 n. 7 (4th Cir. 1975). Here, Dugan said the words “fucking cunt” over the telephone to Redmond-Sherrill. Dugan‘s speech did not occur face-to-face with Redmond-Sherrill, as is required for speech to constitute “fighting words” pursuant to Chaplinsky and its progeny. As discussed in Anniskette, Hershfield, and S.L.J., the face-to-face requirement supports the underlying purpose of the “fighting words” doctrine, which is to preserve the public peace and prevent immediate incitement of violence.
¶43 Words spoken over the telephone are not proscribable under the “fighting words” doctrine because the person listening on the other end of the line is unable to react with imminent violence against the caller. Redmond-Sherrill was in her office at the time of the phone call. Her office is located behind locked doors controlled by a video-monitored entry system. Nothing in the record suggests that she knew Dugan‘s location when he called her, and no facts indicate that Dugan was located near the Law and Justice Center when he placed the phone call. Under these circumstances, the face-to-face requirement of the “fighting words” doctrine cannot be satisfied.
¶44 The District Court focused on the “slight social value” of Dugan‘s speech and the fact that his words constituted “no essential part of any exposition of ideas” in concluding that his words were punishable without offending free speech rights. The Supreme Court has clarified the language in Chaplinsky that described unprotected categories of speech as being “of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” See U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460,
¶45 A review of “fighting words” cases makes clear that the “mere fact that expressive activity causes hurt feelings, offense, or resentment does not render the expression unprotected.” R. A. V., 505 U.S. at 414, 112 S. Ct. at 2559 (White, Blackmun, O‘Connor & Stevens, JJ., concurring). Though Dugan‘s choice of words was among the most distasteful in our vocabulary, if we are to preserve the free speech rights enshrined in the Montana and United States Consitutions, we must recognize that “the State has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most squeamish among us.” Cohen, 403 U.S. at 25, 91 S. Ct. at 1788. The context suggests that Dugan‘s speech was uttered in exasperation and frustration.
[C]urses, oaths, expletives, execrations, imprecations, maledictions, and the whole vocabulary of insults are not intended or susceptible of literal interpretation. They are expressions of annoyance and hostility-nothing more.... Their significance is emotional, and it is not merely immensurable but also variable. The emotional quality of exclamations varies from time to time, from region to region, and as between social, cultural, and ethnic groups.
St. Paul v. Morris, 104 N.W.2d 902, 910 (Minn. 1960) (Loevinger, J., dissenting). Expletives and insults, no matter how distasteful, can be constitutionally proscribed only if they fall within one of the narrow and limited categories of unprotected speech.
¶46 We are likewise not persuaded by the State‘s argument that Dugan‘s speech was punishable under the captive audience doctrine. The Supreme Court has applied the captive audience doctrine “sparingly to protect unwilling listeners from protected speech.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 459, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1220 (2011). The ability of the government to constitutionally shut off discourse solely
¶47 Given the Supreme Court‘s sparing application of the captive audience doctrine, we conclude that it does not apply under these circumstances. Redmond-Sherrill was not in her home when she received the telephone call from Dugan. Redmond-Sherrill was using a business phone at Victim Services, an entity that holds itself out to the public to provide assistance. Dugan‘s phone call was made to elicit those services. The charges against Dugan stem from a single phone call. Dugan immediately hung up the phone after making his objectionable utterance, but even if he had not done so, Redmond-Sherrill had the power at any moment to end the communication by simply hanging up the phone. The privacy interests of a public employee at Victim Services are certainly less substantial than the privacy interests that a private citizen enjoys while in her residence. Under these facts, the State has failed to show that Redmond-Sherrill‘s substantial privacy interests were invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.
¶48 Dugan‘s speech did not constitute an unprotected “true threat.” Calling Redmond-Sherrill a “fucking cunt” is not a statement meant to communicate an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against her. See Black, 538 U.S. at 359, 123 S. Ct. at 1548. Redmond-Sherrill admitted that Dugan did not threaten her or anyone else at Victim Services during the phone call. Furthermore, Dugan‘s words were not unprotected obscenity. Obscene material must be erotic in some significant way and appeal to the prurient interest in sex. See Cohen, 403 U.S. at 20, 91 S. Ct. at 1785;
¶49 We hold that the District Court erred in deeming Dugan‘s
¶50 It is important to note that in reaching the foregoing conclusion, we do not foreclose Dugan‘s prosecution under the statute. Prosecution for his actions in this case does not violate Dugan‘s free speech rights because the statute only proscribes communication made “with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend.”
¶51 Is the Privacy in Communications statute,
¶52 “An over-broad statute is one that is designed to burden or punish activities which are not constitutionally protected, but the statute includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” State v. Nye, 283 Mont. 505, 515, 943 P.2d 96, 102 (1997). The crucial question in addressing an overbreadth challenge is whether the statute sweeps within its prohibitions what may not be punished constitutionally. O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 440, 704 P.2d at 1026; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114-15, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2302 (1972). Even if an enactment is clear and precise, it may nevertheless be deemed overbroad if it reaches constitutionally protected conduct. O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 440, 704 P.2d at 1026.
¶53 Dugan asserts that the statute is facially overbroad. “[A]n individual whose own speech or expressive conduct may validly be prohibited or sanctioned is permitted to challenge a statute on its face because it also threatens others not before the court-those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid.” Lance, 222 Mont. at 99, 721 P.2d at 1263 (quoting Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503, 105 S. Ct. 2794, 2801-02 (1985)).
¶54 We restate the pertinent provisions of Montana‘s Privacy in Communications statute,
45-8-213. Privacy in communications. (1) Except as provided in
69-6-104 , a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely:(a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend, communicates with a person by electronic communication and uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, suggests a lewd or lascivious act, or threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person. The use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or the making of a threat or lewd or lascivious suggestions is prima facie evidence of an intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend.
...
(4) “Electronic communication” means any transfer between persons of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system.
Dugan‘s citation stated that he “called victim on telephone and used obscene, lewd and profane language, offending the victim” in violation of
¶55 The District Court determined that Dugan‘s overbreadth challenge must fail because it was “based purely on speculation and is not real and substantial.” Dugan argues that the Privacy in Communications statute is overbroad because it makes the “use of obscene, lewd, or profane language ... prima facie evidence of an intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend.” Dugan contends that the statutory presumption of intent to offend impermissibly allows the State to punish more speech than is constitutionally proscribable under the First Amendment. The State asserts that because Dugan pled guilty to the charge, there is no evidence that Montana courts have applied the presumption of intent in ways that violate free speech rights. The State argues that Dugan has failed to demonstrate how the statute might infringe on the freedom of speech of others in a real and substantial way in comparison to the statute‘s wide variety of constitutional applications. The State also points to decisions from other jurisdictions that have rejected overbreadth challenges to similar telephone harassment statutes.
¶56 This Court determined that the disturbing the peace ordinance in O‘Shaughnessy was not overbroad after finding that the ordinance had been constitutionally construed:
O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 442-43, 704 P.2d at 1027. The statute was not overbroad because it was effectively construed to only punish “fighting words,” which can be proscribed without offending the
¶57 This Court similarly concluded in Lance that the intimidation statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad. We determined that the statute was narrowly construed to prohibit only “true threats,” which are constitutionally unprotected much like “fighting words.” Lance, 222 Mont. at 103-04, 721 P.2d at 1266. Lance was unable to identify and the Court was unable to find any situations where a person would be constitutionally permitted to make such a threat. Lance, 222 Mont. at 101, 721 P.2d at 1264-65. Citing the rule that “the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well,” the Court refused to facially invalidate the statute on overbreadth grounds. Lance, 222 Mont. at 100-01, 721 P.2d at 1264-65.
¶58 The statutes at issue in O‘Shaughnessy and Lance did not contain a prima facie evidence provision. For guidance on interpreting this provision, we turn back to the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Virginia v. Black. The Virginia statute in question in Black banned cross burning with “an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons” and made any cross burning “prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.” Black, 538 U.S. at 347-48, 123 S. Ct. at 1541-42. While the Court recognized that cross burning performed with an intent to threaten or intimidate is a “true threat” not protected by the
[T]he prima facie provision strips away the very reason why a State may ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate. The prima facie evidence provision permits a jury to convict in every cross-burning case in which defendants exercise their constitutional right not to put on a defense. And even where a defendant like Black presents a defense, the prima facie evidence provision makes it more likely that the jury will find an intent to intimidate regardless of the particular facts of the case. The provision permits the Commonwealth to arrest, prosecute, and convict a person based solely on the fact of cross burning itself.
Black, 538 U.S. at 365, 123 S. Ct. at 1550-51. The prima facie provision was struck down as unconstitutionally overbroad because the
¶59 The Nebraska Supreme Court invalidated a nearly identical prima facie provision in State v. Kipf, 450 N.W.2d 397 (Neb. 1990). Kipf was charged with intimidation by telephone under a statute with a provision that stated: “The use of indecent, lewd, or obscene language or the making of a threat or lewd suggestion shall be prima facie evidence of intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend.” Kipf, 450 N.W.2d at 402. The Court invalidated the prima facie language and concluded that a jury instruction based on the statute was unconstitutional because it deprived defendants of the due process right to have the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime charged, and impermissibly shifted the burden to the defendant to disprove the element of intent in the offense charged. Kipf, 450 N.W.2d at 413. The Court determined that a jury instruction applying the prima facie language would, in the absence of a defendant‘s presentation of evidence negating the intent established by the prima facie provision, have the legal effect of a directed verdict on the issue of criminal intent as an element of the offense. Kipf, 450 N.W.2d at 413.
¶60 Further support for invalidating similar prima facie language is found in Baker v. State, 494 P.2d 68 (Ariz. App. 1972). The prima facie provision in Baker stated that: “The use of obscene, lewd or profane language or the making of a threat or statement as set forth in this section shall be prima facie evidence of intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend.” Baker, 494 P.2d at 70. The court invalidated the prima facie language for failing to make a rational
The test is whether the inference upon which the presumption is based can be sustained by common experience and the circumstances of life. It is our observation that nowadays, obscene, lewd or profane language is not uncommonly used between individuals without any intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend. We accordingly do not believe that it is rational to assume that merely because a person uses obscene, lewd or profane language over the telephone one can conclude the person is doing so with the intent proscribed by the statute.
Baker, 494 P.2d at 71-72 (citations omitted).
¶61 Just as free speech concerns did not permit the shortcut offered by the prima facie evidence provision in Black, Kipf, and Baker, we find that the same holds true here. Montana‘s Privacy in Communications statute,
¶62 Though Dugan is not asserting an as-applied overbreadth challenge, the alleged facts of his case are illustrative. Dugan called Redmond-Sherrill to request assistance in filing an order of protection. He placed the call for a legitimate reason. However, because he became incredibly frustrated when Redmond-Sherrill refused to help him and he went on to say the words “fucking cunt” in exasperation, the prima facie provision creates the presumption that the purpose of his call was to “terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend” Redmond-Sherrill. Such a conclusion is unwarranted under the circumstances. We recognize that “a statute cannot be challenged just because it might result in an unconstitutional abridgment of speech in a hypothetical case.” State v. Allum, 2005 MT 150, ¶ 29, 327 Mont. 363, 114 P.3d 233. However, when judged in relation to the statute‘s plainly
¶63 We hold that the prima facie provision of the Privacy in Communications statute,
¶64 Though the statute was only designed to burden or punish activities which are not constitutionally protected, the statute includes within its scope activities which are protected by the
¶65 Is the Privacy in Communications statute,
¶66 A vagueness challenge to a statute may be maintained under two different theories: (1) because the statute is so vague that it is rendered void on its face; or (2) because it is vague as applied in a particular situation. State v. Watters, 2009 MT 163, ¶ 24, 350 Mont. 465, 208 P.3d 408; Nye, 283 Mont. at 513, 943 P.2d at 101. “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 440, 704 P.2d at 1025; Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108, 92 S. Ct. at 2298. Vague laws offend the following important values:
First, we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and
O‘Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 440, 704 P.2d at 1025-26; Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-09, 92 S. Ct. at 2298-99 (internal quotations omitted) (citations omitted). We review Dugan‘s as-applied and facial vagueness challenges with these considerations in mind.
¶67 A statute is void on its face “if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden.” Nye, 283 Mont. at 513, 943 P.2d at 101. For vague-as-applied challenges, a court must determine whether the statute in question provides a person with “actual notice” and whether it provides “minimal guidelines” to law enforcement. Watters, ¶ 32. To determine whether the challenged statute provides “actual notice,” courts examine the statute in light of the defendant‘s conduct to determine if the defendant reasonably could have understood that the statute prohibited such conduct. Watters, ¶ 32.
¶68 The District Court determined that the Privacy in Communications statute,
¶69 The failure to include exhaustive definitions of every term employed in a statute will not automatically render a statute overly vague, so long as the meaning of the statute is clear and provides a
¶70 The requirement of a mental state to do a prohibited act can render an otherwise vague or indefinite statute constitutional. Nye, 283 Mont. at 514, 943 P.2d at 102; Martel, 273 Mont. at 152, 902 P.2d at 19-20; Screws v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91, 101, 65 S. Ct. 1031, 1035 (1945). As we have previously noted, “if the challenged statute is reasonably clear in its application to the conduct of the person bringing the challenge, it cannot be stricken on its face for vagueness.” Nye, 283 Mont. at 514, 943 P.2d at 102; State v. Lilburn, 265 Mont. 258, 270, 875 P.2d 1036, 1044 (1994); Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 497, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 1193 (1982). In Lilburn, we held that a hunter could not challenge a hunter harassment statute for facial vagueness when his conduct of standing between a hunter and a bison to prevent the animal from being shot was unquestionably proscribed by the statute he was challenging. Lilburn, 265 Mont. at 270-71, 875 P.2d at 1044.
¶71 Other jurisdictions have concluded that statutes similar to Montana‘s Privacy in Communications statute are not impermissibly vague. The Idaho Court of Appeals held in State v. Richards, 896 P.2d 357 (Idaho App. 1995), that a statute prohibiting a person from telephoning another and using “obscene, lewd or profane language” with “the intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or
¶72 Montana‘s Privacy in Communications statute,
CONCLUSION
¶73 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the District Court‘s conclusion that Dugan‘s speech constituted “fighting words.” Next, we strike the prima facie provision of Montana‘s Privacy in Communications statute,
JUSTICE RICE concurring in part, dissenting in part.
¶74 The Court concludes that Dugan‘s statement did not constitute fighting words, is not punishable under the captive audience doctrine, is not a true threat, is not obscenity, and is “certainly not of high social value.” Opinion, ¶¶ 43, 44, 47, 48. Although the Court may have established what Dugan‘s statement is not, I would like to discuss what it is and call it for what it is. My conclusion is based upon and limited to the specific facts of this case, of one person speaking directly and individually to only one other person who was duty-bound to receive communication, with no other intended audience.
¶75 As alleged, Dugan‘s statement was a direct, individual, and personal attack upon Redmond-Sherrill. It was demeaning, degrading, and debasing. It included only words “which by their very utterance inflict injury.” Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572, 62 S. Ct. at 769. It bore “no essential part of any exposition of ideas.” Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572, 62 S. Ct. at 769. It was utterly without any social value whatsoever. It truly constitutes, as used here and in this context, “no part of the expression of ideas.” R. A. V., 505 U.S. at 385, 112 S. Ct. at 2544 (emphasis in original). It had only one purpose: to injure and abuse Redmond-Sherrill, to reduce her human dignity to nothing more than a sexual act or a sexual body part. “Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.” Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572, 62 S. Ct. at 769.
¶76 The Court correctly notes that the Supreme Court offered a clarifying statement in Stevens about descriptions of speech it had used in previous cases. The Supreme Court stated that such descriptions were not generally applicable tests that “permit the Government to imprison any speaker so long as his speech is deemed valueless or unnecessary, or so long as an ad hoc calculus of costs and benefits tilts in a statute‘s favor.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 470, 130 S. Ct. at 1586. It is important to note, however, that Stevens was addressing something far different from the issue here. The federal statute at issue in Stevens criminalized depictions of animal cruelty with such “alarming [definitional] breadth” that pictures of big game hunting could have been outlawed. Stevens, 559 U.S. at 474-75, 130 S. Ct. at 1588-89. The Government defended the challenge by offering the likewise
¶77 It is unnecessary here to engage in the type of “ad hoc calculus of costs and benefits” offered by the Government in Stevens, which the Supreme Court rejected. There is no necessity of weighing Dugan‘s statement against “the social interest in order and morality,” Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572, 62 S. Ct. at 769, because under the facts of this case it holds no weight at all. On its face, the statement offered absolutely no social value, and no justification whatsoever can be offered for it. It communicated no thought or expression to any audience or any person beyond Redmond-Sherrill, who was on the phone with Dugan pursuant to her public duty. The statement was, as alleged, intended to be personally injurious only to her. The right of free speech should not extend to Dugan‘s individually directed, personally debasing, and injurious statement to duty-bound Redmond-Sherrill that had no part of any exposition of ideas. R. A. V., 505 U.S. at 385, 112 S. Ct. at 2544.
¶78 Dugan could have sought to verbally injure Redmond-Sherrill without using “obscene, lewd, or profane language,” and he would not have violated the criminal statute.
¶79 “The right to free speech is not absolute.” State v. Compas, 1998 MT 140, ¶ 25, 290 Mont. 11, 964 P.2d 703. We have often quoted Chaplinsky, as quoted at Opinion, ¶ 18, as the basis that the
¶80 Dugan chose to speak in a manner that was as debasing, injurious, and abusive as can be spoken in our society, in a direct, personal, and individual attack on a public employee who was duty-bound to receive communications from Dugan. I would hold that Dugan‘s speech was integral in harassing Redmond-Sherrill, as “an activity illegal throughout the Nation,” and is “a previously recognized, long-established category of unprotected speech” by this Court. Stevens, 559 U.S. at 470, 130 S. Ct. at 1586. Dugan‘s words should be deemed unprotected speech and he should now be held “responsible for all abuse of that liberty.”
¶81 As to Issue 2, whether the statute is overbroad, the Court today strikes the prima facie language in
¶82 In Richards, the Idaho Court of Appeals upheld Idaho‘s telephone harassment statute against a facial overbreadth challenge. Richards, 896 P.2d at 363. The court stated the defendant‘s overbreadth argument failed because the statute did “not prohibit the mere expression of ideas or information. Telephone calls made with a legitimate intent to communicate are not criminalized. Rather, the statute prohibits only telephone contacts made with a specific and exclusive intent to ‘annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or offend.‘” Richards, 896 P.2d at 362.1 The court said those being accused of violating the statute “must be shown to have formulated the specific harmful intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or offend in order to be guilty, they cannot be heard to complain that they did not understand the mental element of the crime.” Richards, 896 P.2d at 365.
¶83 Likewise, instead of striking the language, I would construe the language of the prima facie evidence in
¶84 I concur in the Court‘s resolution of Issue 3.
¶85 I would affirm.