Supreme Court of the United States
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
November 15, 1965382 U.S. 87
Summary
The Court reversed Shuttlesworth’s convictions under two Birmingham ordinances. It held that the conviction under the sidewalk-obstruction ordinance could not stand because the trial court may have applied the ordinance’s unconstitutional literal terms rather than the later limiting construction, and that the conviction under the police-direction ordinance violated due process because there was no evidence that the officer was directing vehicular traffic. Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas concurred, with Fortas maintaining that the facts could not constitutionally support a retrial under the narrowed ordinance.
Holding
- Conviction under the sidewalk-obstruction ordinance. The conviction under Section 1142 could not stand because the record did not establish that the trial court applied the ordinance only as narrowed to require obstruction of free passage, a police request to move, and continued obstruction after that request.
- Conviction under the police-direction ordinance. The conviction under Section 1231 was constitutionally invalid because there was no evidence that Shuttlesworth was in, on, or around a vehicle or that the officer was directing vehicular traffic when he ordered Shuttlesworth to move on.
Docket 5
Cited authorities
- 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 67
Cited by
- United States v. Glynn Batson, South Plains Land Corporation, a Corporation, and Johnny Lemmons…
- Marcy G. Smith, Appellant v. United States, Appellee; Liz C. Reiley, Appellant, v. United States, Appellee
- S S v. State
- S S and L B v. State of Maine and Dorothy Hanauer — Dufresne, J., Dissenting
- S S and L B v. State of Maine and Dorothy Hanauer — Dufresne, J., Dissenting
- Shook v. City of Lincolnton, NC
- Joe Haywood v. State
- Rhonda Michelle Polk v. State of Maryland