Summary
In City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), the Supreme Court struck down a Houston ordinance that criminalized interrupting police officers. The Court held that the ordinance swept too broadly into protected speech and gave police too much discretion to arrest people for verbal criticism or challenge.
Legal Issue
Does a municipal ordinance that criminalizes interrupting a police officer in the performance of duty violate the First Amendment because it is substantially overbroad?
Holding
Yes. The Supreme Court held that Houston's ordinance was substantially overbroad and facially invalid under the First Amendment because it criminalized a substantial amount of protected verbal criticism and challenge directed at police.
Rule of Law
Talking back to police is not automatically a crime. The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge, even when it is irritating or disruptive.
Court Reasoning
Not yet summarized.
Impact for Officers
The case remains important in public-order policing, protest encounters, street recording disputes, and obstruction-style ordinances. It requires careful line-drawing between protected speech and conduct that actually interferes with lawful police work.
What Officers Can Do
Not yet summarized.
What Officers Should Avoid
Not yet summarized.
Common Misunderstanding
Not yet summarized.