University of Virginia Library

Court Rewords '68 Riot Law,
Reverses Local Conviction

By Mike Gartlan
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled
Monday that an important part of the
state's anti riot law was "over broad" and
therefore unconstitutional.

In its unanimous ruling, the court said
that a key section of the 1968 act makes
unlawful a peaceful assembly that poses
no clear and present danger to public
safety and is therefore in conflict with
the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.

The ruling has local repercussions in
that it reverses conviction of two city
residents who were arrested and tried shortly
after the act became law in 1968.

Arrest

William Sylvester Jones and Roy Lee
Ferguson Jr. were arrested during disturbances
in the downtown area on September 8, 1968
and were given six month jail sentences
following their convictions in the city's
Corporation Court.

In its ruling, the court sustained arguments
by a lawyer for the men who said that the
anti riot law was so vague and over broad as to
infringe on the rights of free speech and
peaceful assembly guaranteed by the U.S. and
Virginia constitutions.

In the opinion, written by Justice Thomas
C. Gordon Jr., the court said the law makes
unlawful an assembly of persons without
authority of law and for the purpose of
disturbing the peace or exciting public alarm or
disorder.

Common Definition

The law fails, however, to measure up to the
common law definition, which expressly
requires the threat of a clear and present danger
of violent conduct, the court ruled.

Under the law, a mere gathering of inactive,
silent and unobstructive persons is declared
unlawful, Mr. Gordon said.

Not only is the statutory definition of
unlawful assembly over broad in including those
assemblies that pose no clear and present
danger, but it is also over broad in sweeping
within its scope the intent or purpose to take
action that also poses no clear and present
danger, he said.

As such, the law would impose criminal
sanctions upon peaceful gatherings such as
those held to excite public alarm about the
danger of nuclear testing, germ warfare or
pollution, he said.

The law could be amended so as to exclude
assemblies that are protected by the First
Amendment, the court said.

In the case of Mr. Owens and Mr. Ferguson,
the court said there was no way of knowing
whether they were convicted of remaining at
the place of a riot or of an unlawful assembly.