People v. Dorsett

Filed May 24, 2024

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION

THE PEOPLE, Appellate Division No.: 23IA900024C Trial Court Case No.: 23T088688C Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s), Trial Court Location: Central Division

v. DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS WILLIAM JOSEPH DORSETT, (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT

Defendant(s) and Appellant(s).

APPEAL from the September 7, 2023 judgment following bench trial entered by the Superior Court, San Diego County, Peter W. Singer, Commissioner. This matter was scheduled for argument and taken under submission on March 27, 2024. REVERSED and REMANDED. On June 25, 2023, Appellant received a citation from a San Diego Park Ranger issuing a citation for violation of San Diego Municipal Code§ 56.27, Disorderly or Offensive Conduct in Public Places. Appellant received the citation for criticizing and video recording the Ranger as he issued a citation to a different individual. Appellant challenged the citation and after a bench trial on September 7, 2023, he was found guilty. He filed a timely notice of appeal.

DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT

Appellant argues that his conduct was free speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He further argues that San Diego Municipal Code§ 56.27 is unconstitutionally overbroad and that the trial court erred by using an incorrect definition of “disturbance” when deciding this case. The People concede Appellant’s conduct was free speech protected by the First Amendment, was not a violation of San Diego Municipal Code§ 56.27, and therefore, submits without objection. Following de novo review, we conclude that Appellant’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The freedom to speak without risking arrest is “one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation.” (City of Houston, Texas v. Hill (1987) 482 U.S. 451, 463.) The judgment of conviction must therefore be reversed. In light of this conclusion, we need not address whether the conduct would otherwise violate Municipal Code section 56.27. This matter is remanded to the trial court to dismiss the conviction and to conduct any necessary further proceedings consistent with this Decision.

____________________________ ALBERT T. HARUTUNIAN III Presiding Judge, Appellate Division