Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D wore a small cloth version of the United States flag sewn to the seat of his trousers. It was approximately four by six inches and was displayed at the left rear of Goguen's blue jeans. Two police officers saw D in those jeans with a group of people. No disruption of traffic or breach of the peace occurred. When an officer approached D to question him about the flag, those present laughed. The following day the officer swore out a complaint against D under the contempt provision of the Massachusetts flag-misuse statute. The statute read: 'Whoever publicly mutilates, tramples upon, defaces or treats contemptuously the flag of the United States . . . , whether such flag is public or private property . . . , shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. . . .' D was not charged with any act of physical desecration. The officer charged specifically that D 'did publicly treat contemptuously the flag of the United States . . . .' D was found guilty. The court imposed a sentence of six months. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. It rejected D's vagueness argument. D began serving his sentence, but was granted bail and then ordered released on a writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court. The District Court found the flag-contempt portion of the statute vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as overbroad under the First Amendment. It held that 'treats contemptuously' did not provide a 'readily ascertainable standard of guilt.' The Court of Appeals affirmed. The court found that the language failed to provide adequate warning to anyone, contained insufficient guidelines for law enforcement officials, and set juries and courts at large. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co