Court Rules San Diego’s Vulgar Speech Ordinance Doesn’t Override First Amendment Rights

EDITORIAL
By Robert Phillips  
Deputy District Attorney (ret.)  

I’ve been preaching for years that law enforcement officers must have a thick skin in those circumstances where a citizen is openly critical of an officer while that officer is attempting to perform his or her duties, so long as that person doesn’t physically interfere with the officer to the point where Pen. Code § 148(a)(1) is violated. (I.e. “...willfully resist(ing), delay(ing), or obstruct(ing) any public officer, peace officer...in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment.”) But somehow, not everyone has gotten the word.  

Take for instance San Diego’s Municipal Code § 56.27, where the powers-that-be enacted this ordinance and determined: 

"That it shall be and is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to be guilty of any offensive or disorderly conduct in or upon any of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, squares, parks, or in any store, or other public place in said city, and it shall be unlawful for any person to make any loud noise, or disturbance, or use any loud, noisy, boisterous, vulgar, or indecent language on any of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, square, park, or in any store or other public place in said city.”  

Well, along comes a San Diego park ranger who used this ordinance in citing William Dorsett when Dorsett had the audacity to criticize (while videotaping, which he also had the legal right to do – an issue not discussed here.) the ranger who, at the time, was issuing a citation to a different individual. Dorsett then challenged his ticket in court, only to be found guilty in a bench trial by a judge who apparently also doesn’t read the California Legal Update (or, possibly, the issue was never raised by the attorneys during the trial). Dorsett filed a timely notice of appeal, resulting in the Appellate Department of the Superior Court’s published decision overturning Dorsett’s conviction. (See People v. Dorsett (May 24, 2024) 2024 Cal.App. LEXIS 492.) 

The issue in this appeal was whether Dorsett had a First Amendment free speech right to openly criticize the officer as the officer was citing another individual. Without providing any legal analysis on the issue, the court simply ruled that ....

© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.