OPINION:
Parking tickets are an irritating fact of life for city dwellers. Though it’s the most common contact a citizen has with the law, tickets rarely go before an actual judge, certainly not a panel of judges. But a parking-tickets case before the New Hampshire Supreme Court last week turned on the right of free speech and the proper role of government.
The defendants call themselves “Robin Hooders,” a merry band of do-gooders who roam the streets of Keene plugging quarters into parking meters showing expired time, to prevent a neighbor returning to his automobile to find bad news on the windshield. It’s nice to be a good neighbor.
This altruistic activity worked the city fathers, always on the scout for opportunities to squeeze turnips for blood, into a lather. But what to do? There’s no law against meter feeding, nor a law against protesting overactive meter maids (and, of course, meter footmen). So prosecutors charged them with interfering with the contract between Keene and the meter maids, asserting that ticket writers are feeling “oppressed,” presumably because they’re not celebrated as the heroines of the roadway. They’re quitting their jobs “because of the stress directly related to the conduct of the defendants,” says Charles P. Bauer, the attorney representing the city.
Mr. Bauer asked the justices to use their authority to impose a “buffer zone” restraining order that would keep meter feeders at an arbitrary distance, say 50 feet or more, from the meters and the maids, lest their feelings be hurt. Justice Robert J. Lynn wondered about the First Amendment implications of doing such a thing. “Are you saying,” he asked, “that protesters shouldn’t be able to say nasty things to the parking-meter people?”
The protesters have been polite, not nasty. After three days of exhaustive hearings in the trial court, the judge realized that the city’s assertion that the Robin Hooders were “harassing” parking-enforcement officers was a bit exaggerated. One claim of “assault” was shown on cross-examination to have been accidental contact between the hands of a protester and the official when they both reached for a flier on the windshield of a car.
Nonetheless, the city’s lawyers want the court to provide a remedy. “You can’t just say, ’This is the right thing to do,’” said Jon Meyer, lawyer for the Robin Hooders. “That’s the role of the city council. That’s the role of the legislature. That’s not the role of a court.”
Several judges bristled at the suggestion that their powers are limited. Justice Carol Ann Conboy, a Democratic appointee, was incredulous at the thought that someone might go to a city council instead of a courtroom to address a municipal grievance.
Mr. Meyer, however, gets it exactly right. If a city council creates a “no speech” zone around meter maids, and the public objects, the politicians can be tossed out in the next election. There’s no mechanism holding New Hampshire judges to account. The judges have much work ahead, mulling these points in the law. They should keep in mind that the only people less popular than meter maids are legislators. A smart judge would interpret the law, not make it.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.