ELMORE MORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Morris was convicted of disorderly conduct for using profane language to police officers. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute as applied violated the First Amendment because the conviction was based solely on offensive words rather than conduct that invaded others' rights or incited breach of the peace.
The Court held the statute constitutional as construed, but reversed Morris's conviction because the judgment did not meet constitutional standards as applied. Words used as communication are constitutionally protected unless they invade others' rights to pursue lawful activities or by their utterance inflict injury or tend to incite immediate breach of the peace.
[1] A statute prohibiting disorderly conduct is constitutional when construed to require that the words used invade the rights of others to pursue lawful activities or, by th…
[2] Conviction under a disorderly conduct statute requires more than showing that the words used were offensive to a part of the general population.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that mere words, used as a tool of communication, are constitutionally protected. The protection fails only when 1) by the manner of their use, the words invade the right of others to pursue their lawful activities, or 2) by their very utterance, they inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
Establishes the constitutional standard for when words lose First Amendment protection in disorderly conduct cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorris was charged with disorderly conduct under Florida Statute § 877.03 for using profane language directed at police officers in the presence of ot…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Decency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We here review the judgment of the County Court of Dade County finding ap pellant guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of Section 877.03, Florida Statutes,1 by use of profane language to police officers in the presence of other persons.
Appellant alleges the statute to be unconstitutional on its face for vagueness, and in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The facts here are similar to those in our recent Opinion of White v. State, 330 So. 2d 3, Opinion filed March 24, 1976, in which we construed the statute to meet federal standards. In that case we said:
“We find ourselves in a similar position, and we require that, for conviction under our statute to be acceptable, more must be shown than that the words were offensive to a part of the general population.
“In sum, the words used by the defendant are protected even though they may not be acceptable in certain strata of society. It is the degree of loudness, and the circumstances in which they are uttered, which takes them out of the constitutionally protected area. Indeed, his conduct would have been equally disorderly had he merely recited ‘Mary Had a Little Lamb’ in the same tone and under similar circumstances.
“We hold that mere words, used a4 a tool of communication, are constitutionally protected. The protection fails only when 1) by the manner of their use, the words invade the right of others to pursue their lawful activities, or 2) by their very utterance, they inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Limited by this construction, we hold the statute constitutional.”
Applying the above standards to the facts in the record before us the judgment of the court does not meet constitutional standards.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and remanded to the County Court of Dade County for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur. HATCHETT, J., concurs in result only.
. 887.03 Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct. — Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 or § 775.083.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDonough v. Mata (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Authorities Cited
- White v. State, 330 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1976)