Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1960

Thompson v. City of Louisville

362 U.S. 199 | 80 S. Ct. 624 | 4 L. Ed. 2d 654 | 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1448 | 80 A.L.R. 2d 1355

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that the Fourteenth Amendment bars a criminal conviction when the prosecution offers no evidence establishing the offense.

Background

On a Saturday evening, Thompson spent about half an hour at the Liberty End Cafe, a public establishment that sold food and beer. Police officers entered on a routine check and observed him dancing or shuffling his feet to jukebox music. After the cafe manager said Thompson had been present for about a half hour and, to the manager's knowledge, had not bought anything, an officer asked Thompson why he was there. Thompson replied that he was waiting for a bus. The officer arrested him for loitering.

Outside the cafe, the officer described Thompson as "very argumentative" with the police. That single description was the entire basis for a separate disorderly-conduct charge. The City also introduced a record of Thompson's prior arrests, but it offered no evidence that he had been unwelcome in the cafe, that his conduct disturbed anyone, or that his argument with police involved threats, profanity, resistance, or disruptive behavior.

Thompson testified that he had bought macaroni and beer, had money and a bus schedule with him, and was waiting for a bus home. The manager testified that Thompson was a regular customer, was welcome at the cafe, and had done nothing to which the manager objected. The Louisville Police Court nevertheless convicted Thompson of both offenses and imposed $10 fines on each count. Because Kentucky law provided no ordinary appellate review for fines of this size, Thompson obtained a stay to seek Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed whether the convictions denied due process.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits a criminal conviction and punishment that rest on no evidence of the defendant's guilt.

Holding

No. Due process forbids conviction and punishment when the record contains no evidence supporting guilt.

Reasoning

The Court drew a sharp line between reviewing the sufficiency or weight of the evidence, which ordinarily does not present a federal constitutional question, and a conviction supported by no evidence at all. A conviction on a charge unsupported by any evidence is as incompatible with due process as a conviction on a charge that was never made.

The City accepted that the convictions would be constitutionally void if the record furnished no support for them. Because the police-court judgments exposed Thompson to fines and possible imprisonment or workhouse confinement if he failed to pay, the absence of evidentiary support implicated the liberty and property protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue #2

Whether any evidence supported Thompson's conviction for loitering under the Louisville ordinance.

Holding

No. The record contained no evidence that Thompson loitered without the cafe manager's consent or that he could not give a satisfactory account of himself.

Reasoning

As applied by the City, the ordinance required proof that Thompson was loitering or loafing in the cafe, could not give a satisfactory account of himself, and lacked the consent of the owner or controller. The City did not charge Thompson with lacking visible means of support, and the evidence in any event showed that he had work, income, property, money, and a home address.

Thompson gave a straightforward account of his presence: he was waiting for a bus. He was in a public cafe for only about half an hour, and the record showed nothing improper about dancing, shuffling, or patting his foot in time with the jukebox. The arresting officer conceded that the dance was not vulgar.

The cafe manager's undisputed testimony established implied consent. He testified that Thompson was a frequent patron, had never been told he was unwelcome, and did nothing that caused the manager to object. Thus, there was not even a semblance of evidence that Thompson was unlawfully loitering without consent.

Issue #3

Whether any evidence supported Thompson's conviction for disorderly conduct.

Holding

No. The officer's bare statement that Thompson was argumentative after his arrest did not establish disorderly conduct.

Reasoning

The City relied solely on the officer's statement that Thompson argued with the officers after they took him outside. The record did not show that Thompson shouted, used offensive language, resisted arrest, threatened anyone, or engaged in conduct likely to disrupt public order or tranquility.

The only identified subject of Thompson's argument was his question asking why he had been arrested. The Court assumed, consistently with Kentucky law, that merely arguing with a police officer could not itself constitute disorderly conduct. Indeed, Kentucky law appeared to require a person wrongfully arrested to object at the time or risk waiving a later challenge to the arrest's legality.