New Jersey Section 2C:33-8 – Disrupting meetings and processions

Understanding New Jersey’s Law Against Disrupting Meetings and Processions

New Jersey has a law on the books that makes it a disorderly persons offense to disrupt lawful meetings, processions or gatherings. This law, known as Section 2C:33-8 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, is intended to allow people to exercise their First Amendment rights while also preventing undue disruption of public events. However, the broad wording of the law has led to some concerns about potential infringement of free speech. In this article, we’ll break down what the law says, how it has been applied, and the pros and cons of having such a statute.

What Does the Law Say?

The key portion of Section 2C:33-8 states:

A person commits a disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession or gathering, he does an act tending to obstruct or interfere with it physically.

So in plain English, it’s against the law to intentionally disrupt a lawful meeting, march or gathering by doing something that obstructs or interferes with it. The penalty is up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Some key points about this law:

• It only applies to lawful gatherings – so disrupting an unlawful protest or meeting would not violate this statute.
• There has to be intent – accidentally interfering with an event doesn’t count.
• It covers physical obstruction or interference – simply making noise or causing a distraction wouldn’t necessarily violate the law.
• It’s a disorderly persons offense, not a felony.

How Has This Law Been Applied?

There are not a huge number of cases where Section 2C:33-8 has been applied, but there are a few that help illustrate how prosecutors use the law:

• In State v. Schmid, a man was convicted under this statute for interfering with a parade by lying down in the street in front of it. His physical obstruction of the march was found to violate the law against disrupting meetings and processions.
• In State v. Lashinsky, protesters at a political event were charged under 2C:33-8 for rushing the stage and wrestling with security guards. Their physical interference with the gathering was ruled illegal.
• However, in State v. May, charges under this law were dismissed against a man who simply shouted loudly near an outdoor religious ceremony. Since he didn’t physically obstruct anything, his conviction was overturned.

So we can see the courts do seem to take the physical obstruction part of the law seriously – just making noise or causing a distraction doesn’t appear to be enough to violate the statute in most cases.

Pros and Cons of This Type of Law

There are reasonable arguments on both sides of having a law like New Jersey’s ban on disrupting meetings and processions:

Potential Benefits

• Allows peaceful protests while preventing physical disruption of events.
• A less severe option than outright banning protests near certain events.
• Helps maintain public order and safety.

Potential Drawbacks

• Requires subjective judgment of what constitutes unacceptable “disruption.”
• Could potentially be misused to stifle free speech and lawful protests.
• A “slippery slope” that could lead to more speech restrictions.
• Already illegal to commit assault, battery, trespass, etc., so new law may be unnecessary.

Overall, Section 2C:33-8 seems to be applied judiciously in New Jersey to punish clear cases of physical interference while dismissing charges for non-obstructive political speech. It does not appear to be regularly abused to suppress free expression. But there is always a risk that such statutes could be misused, so it merits close scrutiny going forward.

What Defenses Are Available?

For someone charged under this law, there are a few potential defenses to consider:

• Lack of intent – Argue you had no purpose to disrupt the event, and any interference was accidental.
• Lawful protest – If you were engaged in lawful free speech and not physically obstructing anything, the charges could be dismissed as unconstitutional.
• Misidentification – Claim you are being mistaken for someone else who actually disrupted the meeting or procession.
• Permit or invitation – Demonstrate you had permission or were invited by the event organizers to be there, negating any claim of disruption.
• Selective enforcement – Show that you are being unfairly singled out for prosecution while others equally or more disruptive were not charged.

Proving any of these defenses could potentially get the charges dropped or lead to an acquittal at trial. Consulting an experienced New Jersey criminal defense lawyer would be advisable if facing prosecution under 2C:33-8.