*3 KRAMER, Before RUIZ and Associate FARRELL, Judges, Judge. Senior FARRELL, Judge: Senior trial, Following appellants a bench were guilty arising of offenses from their found Iraq war on or near the protest of Capitol. grounds of the United States appellants individual Specifically, assembly1 of unlawful or unlaw- convicted crossing during lines2 demon- fully Build- strations at the Hart Senate Office Building, ing, Rayburn House Office Building, Senate Office and the the Russell Capitol Building succes- United States affirm days September 2006. We sive convictions, relevant summarizing the they pertain to each offense-situs facts appellants’ arguments. related (1996). (2001). § 2. 24 DCMR 2100.3 1. D.C.Code 22-1307 group disperse, arrested ings I. to do so. those members who refused Building Office The Hart Senate (the Building”) “Hart II. the evi- recount
Although appellants Hart demonstration dence Rayburn House Office of their one or the other and arrests in (the “Rayburn Building”) challenging briefs, argument they make challenge Some of the assembly unlawful their convictions *4 assembly unlawful their convictions for demonstration, that so arising from that day arising from their actions the next See, waived. challenge has been any such 27) Ray at an entrance to the (September e.g., Ramos v. United They argue gov Building.3 burn (D.C.1990). Nonetheless, because 162 n. 5 to sufficient evi present ernment failed ac- context for the provides that evidence (a) entry impede of their intent to dence Police in Capitol States tions of (b) on their or part and conduct violations, the other arresting them for likely to lead to a breach of circumstances briefly. summarize latter, contend, a nec peace^ —the trial testimony to According essary proof element of under the First credited, gath- had people 300 to 350 judge contrary, appellants’ Amendment. On the Park, an outdoor Upper ered in the Senate adequately purpose impede to area, September 26 for a demon- grassy shown, was not also government and the by permit protest authorized to stration an actual or imminent required prove to Iraq. Capitol in U.S. Police Offi- the war peace. breach of fifty of Galope cer testified some Columbia, Hart In v. District individuals then entered the Odum these atrium, (D.C.1989), where, we stated that in the first floor Building assembly requires chanting, and conviction for unlawful they began “singing, and “(1) ‘the According proof things: presence to of two reading very loudly.” persons acting three or more concert for persons other in the atrium com- Galope, (2) ...; and commis purpose’ the volume of an unlawful plained to the about [statutory] alleged act There were onlookers all the sion of the the noise. (some (quoting Kinoy atrium the information” District way up to the 8th floor of the Columbia, 290, 299, whom, too, “calling complain- (1968) (unlawful loudness”), 400 F.2d assem persons passing bly “requires assembly both the and the through the atrium had to move around of the acts forbidden judge the demonstrators. The trial found commission one statute”)). Here, testimony fairly that, although the demonstration was “loud,” supporting an inference that the disrup- there “was some level of Rayburn blocking” of had assembled front of “incommoding tion” and or Thus, to en intending impede it to be a entrance movement. he found try building protest into the as a was as “reasonable discretion” when [exercise of] follows: police, giving after three verbal warn- crowd, 22-1307, that, any public building ... to providing around 3. See D.C.Code obstruct, relevant here: or incommode ... free en- building....” any public ... any person trance into It shall not be lawful for congregate persons ... and assemble ... to
9H Captain Lloyd government obliged of the U.S. Nor was the According Police, Ray- at the when he arrived prove appellants were otherwise “dis response reports burn orderly” or that of.a their actions threatened to twenty-five he saw some demon- protest, cause a breach of peace.4 Purposely lying Independence in front of the strators blocking impeding entry into a public building. Avenue entrance to the The re- building enjoys pro no First Amendment clining “blocking individuals were en- [the tection, certainly none to require sufficient completely” occupying seventy trance] proof peace of an imminent breach of the adjacent “plaza area to the percent persons warnings before who refuse They pulled had white sheets entrance.” punished. City desist be In Green v. up had lined some over themselves and (4th Raleigh, 523 F.3d Cir. repre- fifteen mock coffins on the 2008), example, upheld the court an that, Lloyd sent victims of war. testified prevent ordinance clause intended “to lay “right up because demonstrators picketers ‘blocking] entrance to entrance ... against the first into people’s egress or out of *5 entering had to ” building,” persons “hop building.’ The court explained: enter, to others—“divert- over” them while The Supreme upheld Court has a similar ... away ed from that entrance” —“went prohibited picketing statute that “in around the corner to South such manner as to obstruct or unrea- that, judge entrance.” The trial found sonably interfere with ingress free or blocked, percent not 100 build- [the “while egress any public premises.” to and from significantly impeded or ing entrance] was Johnson, 611, Cameron v. 390 U.S. 612 “people pick incommoded” because had to 1, 617, 1335, n. 88 20 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 182 way lying around individuals on the (1968). provision imposes Such a no sheets,” ground in some “less than two or on speech. burden As the Johnson entryway.” ... three feet from the explained, provision Court such a “does argument govern- Appellants’ abridge liberty,” not constitutional since part ment showed no intent on their to obstructing pedestrian city access to Odum, entrance, impede supra, see necessary state facilities “bears no rela- 302, Lloyd at merit. is without to ... tionship the freedom to distribute protesters testified that the had been told 617, information or opinion.” Id. 88 in “they three times that violation of (internal quotation S.Ct. 1335 marks Capitol regulations if omitted).... didn’t leave the area or unobstruct (emphasis original). Id. at 302-03 in See they’d (emphasis door ... arrested” be Louisiana, 536, also Cox v. 379 U.S. 554- added). warnings Given these and the (1965) 55, 453, L.Ed.2d 471 85 S.Ct. 13 obvious inference to be from the drawn (pointing “[g]overnmental out that authori- lying up against doorway, appellants’ duty keep ties have the to their streets compare cannot themselves to the movement,” open and available for Odum, protesters “movfing] who while group of demonstrators could not “[a] driveway, and forth across [a] back upon right insist to cordon off ... [an] traffic always moved aside to allow to en- 804, ter,” public private building, entrance to evincing 565 A.2d at thus a non- purpose. pass agree and allow no one to who did not obstructive likely portion punish pro- § various acts intended or "to 4. Another of 22-1307 does ishes disorderly peace,” assembling “engage con- voke a breach of the but duct,” (2001) violating provisions. pun- were not those and D.C.Code 22-1321 tried 912 exhortations”); peace. prove ernment breach Edwards listen to their 229, 231-32, Carolina, Williams, however, re proof 83 added that 372 U.S.
v. South
(1963) (reversing
9 L.Ed.2d
conduct stat
quirement
S.Ct.
peace
of
on State
for breach
convictions
speech only—
a case of
applied
ute as
noting that
grounds,
“[t]here
but
House
lan
profane
or obscene
the utterance
pedestrian
or vehicu
nowas
obstruction
place.
guage
public
in a
traffic”); Arbeitman v. District Court
lar
F.2d at 645.5 It thus has
D.C. at
(2d
Vermont,
F.2d
Cir.
obstructing
to the deliberate
no relevance
1975) (“A
legislate to
may properly
state
building punished
to a
blocking sidewalks
prevent persons
assembly statute
this case.
unlawful
traffic,” citing
obstructing
Coates
Adams,
unlawful
though applying the
And
Cincinnati,
611, 614, 91
City of
here, did so to
assembly statute at issue
(1971),
“and
29 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
in the opinion
facts—undescribed
—that
upon
insist
demonstrators
blocking
of a build
apparently included
or entrance to
cordon off
street
right to
entrance,
im
purpose
much less a
Cox,
citing
building,”
U.S.
public
court,
entry.
concerned the
pede
What
453;
significant gov
“[t]his
85 S.Ct.
re
breach-of-peace
Williams’
adopting
justifies
legislation
interest
ernmental
it,
quirement on the facts before was
obstruction, a result
only
physical
aimed
“punishment of the members
hypothetical
body
objects,
intended to cause
tourists,
sightseers,
or school
group
of a
inconvenience.”).
children,
might innocently congregate
who
*6
Thus, proof of a real or threatened
public
and assemble on a
street
such
peace
assembling
the
breach of
before
crowd, obstruct,
manner as to
or incom
impede entry
to a build
meant to block
Adams,
mode the free use of the street.”
required by
the
ing may
punished
be
is
potential,
That
and
256 A.2d
564-65.
Amendment,
be an unrea
First
and would
corresponding limitation the court read
the
authority to
police
sonable limitation on
statute,
bearing
applica
into the
has
“open and available for
keep entrances
assembly statute to
tion of the unlawful
Cox,
555,
supra,
movement.”
punish
impeding
the deliberate
be,
think,
It cannot
we
the
inconvenience
they
step over demonstrators before
could
Building
The Russell Senate Office
entryway
the
order the defendants to free
(the
Building”)
“Russell
Rayburn Building
or be arrested.
(the day before the
September
On
26
argue that
two
Appellants nevertheless
arrests),
Rayburn Building
group
decisions,
prior
Williams v. District
Co
fifty
some
demonstrators had entered
lumbia,
56,
U.S.App.
D.C.
419 F.2d
States,
Building and demon-
(1969),
Hart Senate Office
and Adams
United
there,
(D.C.1969),
earlier. Simul-
require
gov-
256 A.2d
strated
as described
observed,
ment,
por-
government,
"ap-
the "indecent or obscene words”
5. The
the court
legitimate
punish-
conduct statute "is on
pears to have no
interest in
tion of
broad,
uttered,
extraordinarily
...
person simply
he
face
so broad
it[s]
because
has
else,
hapless
presence
anyone
punishment
would allow
out
some
that it
toe,
who,
crushing
might
his
inno-
be
stonemason
after
words which
considered ‘obscene’
” Id.;
cently
relieving expletives within
‘profane.’
id. at
utters a few
see also
(without
public place.”).
proof require-
earshot of a
F.2d at 644
such a
(or
taneously
shortly
therewith
after-
thus that
police
could not bar them
wards),
many
as
as 350 demonstrators
from crossing
They
the line.
argue
also
along
marched eastward
the south face of
not,
police
line was
in the circum-
Building, approaching
the Russell
First
stances,
“time,
permissible
place, and
Street, N.E. Lieutenant Peter Demas of manner”
expression protect-
restriction on
Police instructed a motor unit
ed
the First Amendment.
argu-
The
to establish a
line of six or seven ments,
interrelated,
plainly
do not convince
corner,
near
blocking
steps
officers
us.
building
that led into the
and
sidewalk
“[W]here
First Amendment
steps
to the curb of Constitution
implicated,
the constitutionality of [the
“primar[y]”
Avenue. Demas’s
concern
police-line] regulation and
application
its
“public safety,
including]
...
must
measured by
principles
be
safety of ... people
building
inside the
legal
pertaining
standards
to government
Congress]
the members
... until
[of
regulations of speech.” Bloch v. District
exactly
could determine
going
what was
Columbia,
(D.C.2004).
time,
on.”6 At the same
all other en-
District,
appellee,
dispute
does not
trances to the
remained open, and
place
where the defendants were
Demás testified that if
protest-
individual
i.e.,
stopped by
the side
line —
ers had told him
desired to visit their
walk
front of
the Russell
a—is
Senators, he would have directed them to
See,
“public forum.”
e.g., Lederman v.
demonstrators,
those entrances. Several
391-
including three of the appellants, crossed
(2002) (sidewalk
291 F.3d
41-44
nonetheless,
the police line
and were ar-
foot of House
steps
Senate
Capi
near
rested as
walked up
toward
forum).
tol
ais
traditional public
southwest door of the Russell
speech
“Where
occurs
traditional
here,
As relevant
police-line regula-
fora,
government regulation must
provide
tions
that when
“parades
narrowly
be
tailored to
significant
serve a
*7
may
other occasions ...
cause persons to
public interest and must
open
leave
alter
streets,
collect on the
the Chief
native means and methods of communica
of Police ... or an officer
him
acting for
Bloch,
tion.”
(citing,
much here, Nor, in the circumstances Park) in- appeared who Upper Senate obliged police were the to await foresee likely reaching of and tent on building by able of the demonstra Russell a dan- entering posed intervening. government tors before A security ger building of the and limitation expressive activity does not ability of Senate members and their staffs “the could fail because decision-maker desig- to conduct business in a structure developed an have alternative measure” an its makes clear—as nated —as name restrictive, so cho long less the means building. police office That the had reason v. Abney sen are reasonable in context. protesters, to believe the or a sizeable States, (D.C. A.2d them, to enter the number would seek (the 1992); see id. at 861 “is government building and continue their demonstration required to await actual harm before contemporaneous there is shown regulation enforcing such as Order” [the] (at shortly actions same time or be- there). protestors at issue Because fore) protesters who had entered signalled carry an here had intent to Hart nearby engaged demonstrations their conduct at inside “singing, chanting there in and read- Building, Hart could reason very loudly.”7 ably act so as to off a similar occur head authority for Appellants cite no Moreover, rence at the Russell deeming the or House interior Senate only line blocked one entrance Buildings equivalent Office to the Rotunda building. Some demonstrators testi itself, Capitol Building which we visiting fied that kept have termed a for demon “unique situs Senator, but one of them could have States, activity.” stration Berg v. United walked a short distance to another en (D.C.1993) (quoting trance to the to do so. Lieuten Wheelock United ant in fact protesters Demás met with (D.C.1988)). buildings The former are tried to work out a way for them to visit where, quintessentially, congressional *8 they their “and Senators continue what “carry members out of office” the duties wanted to do their keeping] [in with First and are entitled “transact business rights.” Amendment His actions thus orderly in an manner without interfer in accord with the court’s observation States, ence.” Markowitz v. (whose in Abney that the defendant convic (D.C.1991). The Russell upheld demonstrating tion we for therefore, there Building, a the is situs where enforce, under the of Capitol Capitol Police First the without order) objection, Amendment of prohibition despite the a closure have contin- could particular justified. McFerguson It does not offi- matter that the lice action was v. Unit- duty Building may on at the (D.C.2001) (in- cers Russell ed 770 A.2d 72-74 activity have known of the inside the Hart omitted). good ternal citation There is no Building. concerning aIn case "a fast-mov- why ought apply the reason doctrine not to ing sequence involving of events a number of Capitol monitoring also to Police si- officers law enforcement at several different officers large by groups multaneous demonstrations locations,” applies this court the doctrine people. knowledge deciding po- collective in whether left that area and marched westbound on parts Capi- protest at other ued his by hill, including suggested some Avenue down the then Constitution grounds, tol Street, Id. at 862.8 police. the turned left on First N.W. and front of moved south toward the west the the or Preventing “disruption of] police up set Capitol When legislature’s business” derly conduct stop line “to demonstrators police [the] interest. governmental a substantial going Capitol too far [toward] States, 714 A.2d v. United Smith-Caronia group] could interfere with oth- [the where (D.C.1998). police Because the Capitol,” activities of the the marchers er reasonably protes foresaw actions walking area” and continued “l[eft] Building that are tors inside the Russell front until south across west activity normal “incompatible with the Maryland walkway reached the Avenue A.2d at 398 place,” Berg, supra, [that] (internal omitted), leading Capitol Building. As citation the decision police walkway, police up line outside the entrance ascended the set up set means for leaving open alternative having while line after offered the march- second message was convey (on protestors ers recommendation on-scene attor- substantially “not measure Office) reasonable —a neys from the General Counsel’s necessary.” Abney, supra, than broader [grassy on permit new “to demonstrate omitted). (internal citation front,” on the west an offer the dem- area] crossing po convictions for Appellants’ spurned. Lloyd onstrators ordered the there must stand. lice line police prevent line order to second getting Capi- marchers from “close to the
IV. safety and ... to let the tol for reasons Capitol The United States Congress complete their mission.” The group of demonstrators numbered from 50 Finally, affirm the convictions we 100,9 chanting singing who were crossing police line coffin, Building, although carrying “peaceful.” but were outside the that measure trenched question of whether up “[proba- The second line was set closely activity is a closer protected too bly yards” Capitol Building from the one. designed to bar access to the Capitol, narrow terrace of the an area west Septem- that on Lloyd testified
Captain
keep
also wished to
clear “for
who
group of the demonstrators
ber 26 a
building.10
routes” from the
Upper
Park
evacuation
had assembled
Senate
security
including
protect
need to
not have the defect
prosecution
8.This
does
n
Bloch,
members,
supra,
"the
congressional
where
persons,
identified
such as
government
only
presented
evidence
building.
working
police-line
justify
[in
of [a]
its establishment
*9
hearsay
was ...
House]
front of the White
wholly
transcript
not
clear
9. From the
it is
testimony"
speculative
as to need. 863
and
only to demon-
whether this number referred
"competent,
A.2d at 851.
In the absence of
strators,
bystanders.
and did not also include
testimony
that the
...
to show
admissible
activity
expressive
was narrow-
restriction on
up police
a
"When I make a decision to set
10.
governmental
ly
significant
a
tailored to serve
stated,
line,” Lloyd
"I’ve taken into consider-
interest,”
convic-
we reversed the defendant’s
egress
evacu-
...
if there's an
ation
Here,
crossing
police
the
line.
Id.
tion for
clear,
ation[;]
plus
if
I have to have routes
contrast,
Demás,
by
who was the
Lieutenant
demonstrating group is too close to the
Building,
charge at the Russell
testi-
officer in
Congress
building, they
the
from com-
disturb
and
that he ordered the line established
fied
mission,
obligation.”
pleting
its
its
necessary—
why
that
explained
he believed
police
Capitol
the
line was
the entire
within which
for
Another reason
banned,
marchers had exceeded the
peaceful
that the
even
demonstrations are
simply
assembly and
their authorized
bounds of
justifications
Cap-
and that
offered
the
ac-
“engaged
now
demonstration
were
Lloyd
by any police
tain
—unconfirmed
some
permit.”
When
tivity
without
orders offered
regulations
general
into
the
through
po-
marchers crossed
fifteen
barring
evidence—for
their movement as
line, they were arrested.
lice
in that area are too weak to
protestors
on
support so
a restriction
First
broad
recognized
this
Abney, supra,
court
In
activity.
Amendment
government’s
“pro-
interest
that
the
perimeters”
Capitol
tecting]
shy
say
are
We
not
when “cir-
Building is a substantial one
challenged
gives
line
rise
con
police
at
so dictate.
860.
cumstances”
First,
indicated,
as
stitutional concern.
in Abney
circumstances
special
although
Lloyd explained
Captain
his
security
concerns created
“increased
line,
decision
order
potential
crisis
Persian Gulf
and
[then]
prosecution
present
not
the trial
did
activities
threats of terrorist
as
result
any
court with
regulation announcing a
it,”
accordingly
and we
sus-
id.
general policy
Capitol
Police
tained,
as-applied
against an
First Amend-
activity
bar
within
demonstrative
interim
challenge,
regulation by
an
ment
perimeter
Capitol
broad
effectively
Capitol
Police
barred
presence
of the kind drawn here. The
activity
Capi-
all
near the
expressive
a regulation
general
such
order
except for
Building steps
nearby gras-
tol
important
has been deemed
This,
sy-area locations. See id. at 858-62.
analogous
prosecutions
context of
said,
the valid governmental
we
served
(or
unlawful
refusal
to leave on
“restricting
interest of
the access of all
demand),
required
where the court has
perimeter
specific
during
to a
individuals
“some
factor”
specific
sup
additional
in order
the Gulf War crisis
to monitor and
leave,
an
porting
official’s order to
potential
security
control
threats
found
general
has
it in
orders such as
users,”
and its
as well as to
proscription
upheld
Abney.
evacuation routes
“keep[]
clear.” Id.
(internal
citation
at 859
omit
861, 862.
ted).
Furthermore,
recently
as
Although
point
the District does
out
not
2002, the federal Circuit Court struck
fact,
it is evident to
observer
Capitol
down as
unconstitutional
Po
have
Capitol
adopted,
Police
likewise
banning
lice Board
all
regulation
leaf
employ,
security
enhanced
measures
leting and other “demonstration activ
perimeter
around the
Build-
Capitol
on the sidewalk at
ities]”
foot of
(indeed,
around the entire
Capitol
U.S.
the House
and Senate
on the
complex) since the events of September
East
Building,
Front of
reasonably
No one can
dispute
holding
of the ban
part
“that
legitimacy
general,
such measures in
narrowly
signifi
tailored to further a
They argue,
do
do so.
governmental
cant
purpose.”
however,
Leder
action in this case
man,
supra,
100-yard
amounted to establishment of a
(or
length)
Appellants argue,
“football field”
cordon around
Although
must be left to the
subject
it was not the
reasonable
much
trial,
judgment
scene,
testimony at
the officers on the
Capitol
Police
have
agree.
adopted
Abney,
As we stated in
permit
supra,
content-neutral
process
“[t]he idea that courts
allowing demonstration
should
second-
activity on the
time,
guess[]
responsible
Capitol grounds subject
authorities about
place
legitimate
how a
governmental
manner limitations. See U.S.
interest
Capitol
Po-
might
have been achieved better
has been
LICE, CONDUCTING AN EVENT
ON UNITED
rejected
http://www.us
explicitly by
Supreme
Court.”
States
GROunds,
capitolpolice.gov/speciaLevents/
guide-
(citing
Clark v. Cmty. for
(revised
2009).
Non-Violence,
lines_app_page.pdf
288, 299,
June
Creative
Appellants
pro-
(1984));
availed themselves of this
104 S.Ct.
918 405, RUIZ, Judge, dissenting States, Associate 515 A.2d v. United
also Shiel part. (“Even (D.C.1986) appropri- more if a 408 could have the situation response to ate un the conviction for I reverse would formulated, validity of the the been Ray the assembly the lawful on judge’s turn on does not ... order Building because House Office burn decision- responsible the agreement with gov that the requires binding precedent appropriate most concerning the
maker only protest that the prove not ernment significant govern- promoting method incommoded or obstructed ers have interests.”) (internal citation ment building, also that but entrance omitted). quotation marks threatened, in, or engaged have Adams v. peace. See breach sum, police offi- judgment In (D.C. States, 563, 564 256 part progression, as appellants’ cers 1969) Co (citing v. District Williams group of demonstrators a sizeable 64, lumbia, 56, 419 U.S.App. D.C. foreseeably disrupt could whose actions (1969)). 638, Appellants were F.2d business, should be congressional breaching peace,1 charged not with selected was point at the blocked present evidence government did unduly limitation that did not a reasonable trial and the peace, of breach of their right to disseminate restrict Rather, finding. no such court made Lederman, su- message. This case is not majority acknowledges, and as a uniform police applied pra, where noted that “there was no con judge trial visitor [and leafletter] ban “to a lone trary evidence to the assertion Grounds,” Capitol re peaceful was a demonstration place had in F.3d ex carried out as a means of spectfully process authorizing demonstrations permit ap judge found pression.” subject grounds to reasonable size on the protest pellants’ limitations. Id. at 291 F.3d and other a series of doors clearly [on block[ed] crossing convictions for Appellants’ at 46. Independence Avenue side of line outside the even Rayburn Building], percent, must stand. any- though physically prevent it doesn’t in, incommode. walking one from does Affirmed. gestures or com- appeal make rude or obscene Appellants the first time on raise for "sufficiently ap- persons passing that the information failed or observations on ments crowd, charge against him so prise accused of the hearing, by, ob- or in their or may properly prepare his defense.” Horo- struct, incommode, he any the free use of or Columbia, 291 A.2d District street, avenue, road, witz highway, alley, such (D.C.1972). charged by Appellants were thereof, any pavements or or foot statute, quoted the but an information that any public pri- into or the free entrance for which specify did not the conduct inclosure, building in violation of vate or being charged: (2001). D.C.Code 22-1307 congre- did UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY: insufficiency of the information Because street, avenue, any gate and assemble trial, we would reverse was not raised road, alley, highway, in or around or or ground only there is "demonstrable if inclosure, building any any public or or Craig prejudice,” v. United reservation, park or at the entrance or (D.C.1985), appellants, who which inclosure, private challenge on First Amend- their convictions talking engage in loud and boisterous grounds, have not shown. ment conduct, or insult other *12 question things that those that has characterized these Again there’s everyone clearly arrested were there and were cases is that involved was who were doorways conducting courtesy and in front of the and didn’t leave themselves with respect for each other which when were instructed to. So the maximizes this; speech the value of the and the demonstra- question was this violation pass could constitu- tion and minimizes the relevant conflict.” of the statute [that] In scrutiny? my opinion, And in the court’s view under circumstances where tional was; clearly they keep could to there has been no actual or threatened seek peace, breach the conviction cannot the access clear. stand.2 presence The of the coffins was not subject lying of arrest. It those was shows, the evidence here What consis- the,
up
right
at the
level. And
remarks,
judge’s
tent with the trial
is that
that
strike me as an area that
does
appellants’
protest
war
was taken in .stride
reasonably
to
keep
could
seek
people entering
leaving
clear. And so I find these defendants Rayburn Building,
went about their
who
guilty.
most,
by,
making slight
business
altera-
by “walking
tions such as
over”
dem-
at trial
The evidence adduced
showed
choosing
onstrators or
to use another en-
protesters, “[approxi-
that some of the
trance. That this was so is not surprising
so,”
mately
according
Captain
20 or
notwithstanding
because
ex-
belief
Lloyd,
lying
Thomas
were
close to the
pressed by Captain Lloyd
inter-
result,
building.
entrance of the
As a
he
necessary
Congress
vention was
to “let
testified, although
couple persons
“a
were
mission,”
complete their
the “mission” of
getting
building,
into the
successful”
Congress
many
and of
persons
members
“[m]ost,
people
go
the other
did choose to
Capitol routinely
visit the
who
includes
Captain Lloyd
to another entrance.”
testi-
intense and sometimes even heated dia-
physically
that he “didn’t
see some-
fied
logue
policy
about issues of
that affect the
entrance
the build-
body approach [the
country
Nation. Whether our
should be at
I did see
ing] and who was unsuccessful.
historically
war is one of the issues that
people
people
avoid the area based on the
compelled
has
citizens to
petition
Con-
line,
know,
you
along
doorways.”
gress and mount demonstrations
Ray-
persons entering
leaving
Some
Capitol.
around the
“hop”
burn
had to “walk over” or
Williams,
protesters
lying
Appeals
who were
down
In
the U.S. Court of
over the
war,
interpreted
for the District of
pretending
be casualties
with
Columbia
judge explicit-
The trial
the section of the
conduct stat-
sheets over them.
“any per-
there had
no ute which
it unlawful for
ly commented
been
makes
curse, swear,
or make
peace, stating
breach of the
“one of
son
use of
Rayburn Building
lying "right
entrance to the
that the demonstrators were
2. After the
doors,
know,
Captain Lloyd
having
blocking
was described to
"an
actually you
you go
like
outer entrance and then
in there’s
consequently,
doors” and
"the entrances
alcove,
a little
then there's an actual entrance
blocking completely.”
testimony,
This
building,”
protest-
he testified that the
however,
Captain
inconsistent with
up "against
ers were lined
the first ... en-
Lloyd’s
people
observation that several
did
it,
you
building.”
trance as
described
building during
enter the
the demonstration.
This would have been the “outer entrance”
judge
persons
The trial
found that
were not
Rayburn
and not the “actual entrance” to the
“physically prevented”
entering
majority quotes Captain
building.
Lloyd’s testimony
proceeding
an
from earlier
*13
that
it
guishes Williams
ground
on the
or indecent or ob-
language
any profane
speech, and not conduct —a
pure
involved
disorderly
words,
any
in
engage
or
scene
validity in First
finds
distinction
conduct,
street....”
D.C.Code
any
in
See Cox v.
jurisprudence.
Amendment
formerly D.C.Code
(2001),
§ 22-1307
Louisiana,
559, 564,
476,
85 S.Ct.
Williams,
(1981);3
see
§
22-1107
(1965) (noting that “the
L.Ed.2d 487
59,
at 641.
at
419 F.2d
U.S.App. D.C.
intermingled with
speech
fact that free
constitutional
“of
serious
Because
bring
conduct does not
with
[regulated]
notably
broad statute
posed by
problems
But that
protection”).
dis-
constitutional
Williams,
regulating
speech,”
made untenable
this
tinction was
644,
62,
at
419 F.2d at
U.S.App. D.C.
Adams, which, following
decision in
court’s
valid-
the statute “could be
court held that
Williams,
narrowly interpreted
also
to
only if it were construed
ly applied
here,
at
of the statute
issue
specific section
something
simply
more than
require
congregate
makes it unlawful “to
which
language
profane or obscene
utterance of
street,
...
in or
any
in
or
and assemble
Id. F.2d at
in
public place.”
and en-
any public building,
around
more”,
the add-
“something
645. The
talking
in
and boisterous
or
gage
loud
objectionable lan-
requirement
ed
conduct,
crowd,
... or
disorderly
to
other
spoken in circumstances which
guage “be
incommode,
any
the free use of
obstruct or
Id. street,
peace.”
threaten a breach
the free entrance into
such
or
building....”4
any public
private
or
majority
at 646. The
distin-
419 F.2d
street, avenue,
road,
22-1307,
alley,
any
in
heard in
3.
which was enacted
Section
inclosure,
“disorderly
highway, public park
has been described as
or
or oth-
statute which was not at its birth
building,
any premises
conduct
er
or
other than
drafting
committed,
and which
model of craftsmanlike
where the offense was
those
age.”
certainly
improved with
has
Williams,
penalty
$
of not more than
under
419 F.2d
imprisonment
more than 90
or
for not
provides in full:
at 641. The statute
days,
every
or both for each and
such
any person or
It shall not be lawful for
offense.
persons within the District of Columbia
§
D.C.Code 22-1307.
street,
congregate
any
to
and assemble in
light
state stat-
I note that in
of numerous
avenue,
road,
alley,
highway, or in or
or
regularly
to the one we have
had
utes similar
inclosure,
any public
or
around
Columbia,
struggle
with in the District
reservation,
any park
or at the en-
or
or
sought
“system-
Penal Code has
Model
any private building or inclo-
trance of
prior
pe-
provisions law
atize the chaotic
sure,
engage
in loud and boisterous
nalizing
variety
petty
a wide
misbehavior
conduct,
talking
or other
or
'disorderly
vague headings
under such
as
gestures
insult or make rude or obscene
‘vagrancy’;
safeguard
[and]
conduct' or
persons
or comments or observations on
liberty by
of offenses
civil
careful definition
so
hearing,
passing by,
in their
or to
or
cover,
example,
do not
obstruct,
incommode,
crowd,
or
the free
disseminating religious
peaceful picketing, or
avenue,
street,
alley,
any
use of
such
political views.” Model
or
Penal
Code
road, highway,
any
pave-
or
of the foot
(1981);
explanatory
§
note
see id.
250.1
thereof, or the free entrance into
ments
conduct);
(ob-
(disorderly
§
§id. 250.7
250.2
private building
any public
or inclo-
or
structing highways
public pas-
and other
sure;
any person
it shall not be lawful for
sages).
curse, swear,
persons to
or make use
or
any profane language
or indecent
majority's
disagree
characteriza-
I
with
words,
engage
any
disor-
obscene
support[s]
"fairly
an infer-
tion that evidence
street, avenue, alley,
derly
any
conduct in
that the defendants had assembled
inclosure,
ence
road, highway, public park or
Rayburn
entrance in-
church,
front of the
building,
assembly
public
building.”
room,
impede entry
tending to
into
place,
or in
or in
other
above,
only
quoted
the trial court found
any place
be
As
wherefrom
same
Adams,
22-1307;
see
conduct statute to students
sightseers “innocently congregate who they
assemble on a street” even if crowd, “in
do so such a manner as to
obstruct, use, the public’s incommode” "peaceful conducted demon- The trial court did not find that assem- Rayburn "respectfully,” stration” and acted but did not bled House Office "intending” impede entry. leave "when were instructed to do so.”