Tweet
Well, this guy is going to have a dead dog and crack sprinkled on him...
CONCORD, N.H. —The state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that that New Hampshire violated a man's free speech rights when it rejected his request to put "COPSLIE" on a license plate.
In the unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said New Hampshire's law is unconstitutionally vague by prohibiting vanity plates that "a reasonable person would find offensive to good taste."
David Montenegro, who two years ago legally changed his name to "human," said in November 2013 that he wanted the vanity plate to express opinions about the police.
"If i could condense all of the problems that I've seen in New Hampshire government into a single sound bite small enough to fit on a license plate, 'Cops lie' would be it," he said.
The Department of Motor Vehicles said the plate's message was offensive to good taste. But the justices said the standard is unconstitutionally vague because it is "so loosely constrained (that it) authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."
The state Supreme Court went on to say in its opinion that while a separate part of the rule prohibits obscene plates, the phrase "offensive to good taste" is not defined in the regulation.
The court said that while the DMV relied on reasonable people to decide what's offensive, "reasonable people frequently come to different conclusions."
There were a number of other items raised in the appeal, such as whether vanity plates constitute a public forum, but the court said because it had already found the restriction unconstitutional, it wasn't necessary to decide those issues.
The case has been sent back to Superior Court for final disposition.
Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/court-expec...#ixzz313F1velz
CONCORD, N.H. —The state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that that New Hampshire violated a man's free speech rights when it rejected his request to put "COPSLIE" on a license plate.
In the unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said New Hampshire's law is unconstitutionally vague by prohibiting vanity plates that "a reasonable person would find offensive to good taste."
David Montenegro, who two years ago legally changed his name to "human," said in November 2013 that he wanted the vanity plate to express opinions about the police.
"If i could condense all of the problems that I've seen in New Hampshire government into a single sound bite small enough to fit on a license plate, 'Cops lie' would be it," he said.
The Department of Motor Vehicles said the plate's message was offensive to good taste. But the justices said the standard is unconstitutionally vague because it is "so loosely constrained (that it) authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."
The state Supreme Court went on to say in its opinion that while a separate part of the rule prohibits obscene plates, the phrase "offensive to good taste" is not defined in the regulation.
The court said that while the DMV relied on reasonable people to decide what's offensive, "reasonable people frequently come to different conclusions."
There were a number of other items raised in the appeal, such as whether vanity plates constitute a public forum, but the court said because it had already found the restriction unconstitutional, it wasn't necessary to decide those issues.
The case has been sent back to Superior Court for final disposition.
Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/court-expec...#ixzz313F1velz
Comment