CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS v. HILL

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether a municipal ordinance making it unlawful to "interrupt" or "oppose" a police officer in the execution of their duty was unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.

Action

Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

Upon shouting at police in an attempt to divert their attention from his friend during a confrontation, appellee was arrested for "willfully . . . interrupt[ing] a city policeman . . . by verbal challenge during an investigation" in violation of a municipal ordinance making it unlawful for any person "to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty." 

After his acquittal in Municipal Court, appellee Raymond Wayne Hill brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas challenging the ordinance's constitutionality and seeking damages and attorney's fees. The district court held that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad on its face, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the ordinance was substantially overbroad, since its literal wording punished and might deter a significant range of protected speech.