Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Kovacs v. Cooper

Supreme Court of the United States · 1949 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFree SpeechMunicipal Police PowerVaguenessSound AmplificationFirst AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentfree speech

Facts

Trenton Ordinance No. 430, § 4 made it unlawful to use on public streets a sound truck, loud speaker, sound amplifier, or similar instrument attached to a vehicle that emits loud and raucous noises. A city patrolman heard a sound truck broadcasting music on a public street near the municipal building; when he approached, the music stopped and a man's voice was broadcast from the truck. Appellant admitted he operated the mechanism for the music and spoke into the amplifier. He challenged the ordinance as violating freedom of speech and due process because it was allegedly vague and unconstitutional on its face and as applied.

Issue

Whether a municipal ordinance that, as construed by the state courts, bars sound trucks emitting loud and raucous noises from public streets violates the Fourteenth Amendment by abridging freedom of speech or by being unconstitutionally vague.

Rule

Words such as "loud and raucous" may be sufficiently definite when they convey a commonly understood meaning. A municipality may, under its police power, protect the well-being and tranquility of the community by prohibiting sound trucks broadcasting at a loud and raucous volume on public streets, because freedom of speech does not guarantee an unlimited right to obtain an audience by objectionably amplified sound and such regulation is permissible when it is not a system of prior censorship.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The City of Dayton, Ohio, adopts an ordinance making it unlawful to use a vehicle-mounted sound amplifier on public streets if the device emits "loud and raucous" noise. No permit is required, and the rule applies regardless of the message being broadcast. Maya Linwood drives a van through downtown broadcasting a political speech at a volume audible several blocks away and is cited.

If Maya challenges the ordinance under the Fourteenth Amendment as abridging free speech, the strongest argument for upholding the ordinance is that it

Explanation. The majority sustained a municipal prohibition on vehicle-mounted amplified sound on public streets when limited to broadcasts that are loud and raucous. The key reasoning was that free speech does not guarantee an unlimited right to obtain an audience by objectionably amplified sound, and the city may protect public order, residential quiet, traffic safety, and unwilling listeners. The ordinance is especially distinguishable from invalid prior restraints because it does not require official permission before speaking.