Norwell v. City of Cincinnati

Background

Edward Norwell is a 69-year-old immigrant who worked evenings at his son’s small liquor store. On Christmas night he was walking near the store when an officer approached, asked questions, and pursued him. The officer testified he arrested Norwell for "being loud and boisterous" and because Norwell "was annoying me." The city ordinance made it a crime to act in a "noisy, boisterous, rude, insulting or other disorderly manner, with the intent to abuse or annoy any person." A municipal court found Norwell guilty and fined him $10; the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed; the state high court dismissed further appeal for lack of a substantial constitutional question.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether applying that ordinance to Norwell’s verbal protests punished protected speech. The record shows Norwell did not use abusive language or fighting words, did not run, and did not physically resist in a way that led to arrest. The officer said he arrested him because Norwell protested and annoyed him. The Court concluded that, on these facts, the ordinance was used to punish non-provocative verbal objection to police treatment and therefore punished speech protected by the Constitution. The Court granted review and reversed the conviction.

Real world impact

The decision means people cannot be criminally punished under this kind of "annoying" disorderly-conduct law for simply voicing non-abusive objections to police. It leaves open that different facts—such as abusive "fighting words" or true interference with police—could be charged under other laws. The reversal set aside the conviction and vindicated Norwell’s speech rights.