State v. French, determined Wednesday by the N.J. appellate court docket (in an opinion by Judges Susswein and Vanek) reverses defendant’s convictions for violating a COVID stay-at-home order in Might 2020; the defendant had been “walking along the highway holding up signs to passing motorists stating ‘PHUCK,’ ‘#THIN BLUE,’ and ‘Slow Down Police Ahead.” The order supplied, in related half,
All New Jersey residents shall stay residence or at their place of residence until they’re … leaving the house for an academic, non secular, or political purpose ….
The court docket’s evaluation:
At an April 4, 2020 press briefing, the Governor was requested particularly concerning the means to protest underneath EO 107. He responded: “[D]on’t protest as a group. We respect folks who want to protest, find some other way to do it virtually online, whatever it might be.”
The Governor additional clarified his place concerning protests underneath the related govt orders at a press briefing on April 29, 2020:
Folks have a proper to protest. I want they’d do it from residence …. The factor that actually bothered me was they had been congregating, and so they weren’t carrying masks for probably the most half and so they had been on high of one another and that is what led to the [violation of the executive order] …. I want people would protest from residence and nearly, but when they will protest we’re [going to] be robust on imposing the … no congregation.
… [A] June 17, 2020 memorandum from the State of New Jersey Legal professional Basic entitled “Guidance Regarding Municipal Prosecutors’ Discretion in Prosecuting COVID-19 Related Offenses” … directs:
… To make sure that all outside political actions and outside worship companies obtain uniform remedy, I’m directing prosecutors to maneuver to dismiss any Govt Order violations beforehand filed for such conduct, regardless of the preliminary possible trigger willpower or appropriateness of the violation on the time it was issued. Based mostly on information maintained by the Division of Prison Justice, there have been 5 people who obtained summonses for organizing outside political protests and spiritual companies in violation of Orders previous to the issuance of Govt Order No. 152; no particular person protestors or worshipers have been cited up to now.
Notably, the Legal professional Basic Memorandum directs prosecutors to dismiss any pending expenses for “outdoor political activities.” … [D]efendant was protesting by holding up posterboards expressing speech for motorists to see…. [D]efendant’s protesting constitutes political exercise for the needs of EO 107 and the Legal professional Basic Memorandum. “Political expression obviously includes any fair comment on any matter of public interest, whether or not the subject of an election campaign, whether or not embarrassing to the local governing body, and whether or not irritating to one’s neighbors.” … [D]efendant’s conduct … constitutes “outdoor political activity” and that the fees for violation of EO 107 had been required to be dismissed underneath the Legal professional Basic Memorandum.
The court docket upheld, although, “a conviction for walking in the direction of traffic,” underneath a statute that gives, “On all highways where there are no sidewalks or paths provided for pedestrian use, pedestrians shall, when practicable, walk only on the extreme left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing approaching traffic.”
Defendant had additionally been convicted of disorderly conduct based mostly on his “alleged shaking of his genitalia from outside his clothing and raising his middle finger toward the police,” however the decrease court docket had reversed these convictions (for causes not famous within the appellate opinion), and the state did not attraction.