Houston, Texas enacted a city ordinance that prohibited individuals from ‘intentionally interrupting a city police officer while executing his official duty by a spoken exchange.’ The city defends the validity of the ordinance on the basis it deters criminal conduct without hampering the First Amendment Freedom of Speech Clause. The Appellee approached a police officer in order to divert attention from a civilian who may have been inappropriately directing traffic. The Appellee instructed the police officer to ‘pick on’ someone his own size and answered ‘yes’ to the police officer’s question to him if he was ‘interrupting him in his official capacity as a Houston police officer?’ As a result, the Appellee was arrested. The trial court acquitted the Appellee. However, the Appellee subsequently pursued declaratory relief in District Court that the city ordinance was overbroad and therefore, unconstitutional pursuant to the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause. The District Court denied Appellee’s declaratory judgment. The appeals court reversed this decision in favor of the Appellee. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.