UNITED STATES FILED AUG 12 1987 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM THOMAS, Cr. No. 87-0231 ELLEN THOMAS, Defendants
v. Semple, supra, slip op. at 3, citing Scott v. District of Columbia, 122 A.2d 579 (D.C. Mun. App. 1956); Savage v. District of Columbia, 54 A.2d 562 (D.C. Mun. App. 1947).
See U.S. v. Gant, 691 F.2d 1159, 1162-3 (5th Cir. 1982).
has not been developed on the record. Hence it is impossible for the court to determine whether defendants fit squarely within Clark v. C.C,N.V., in which the Supreme Court upheld S 7.96(i)(1) as a valid time, place, and manner restriction on defendants' speech rights, or whether defendants' actions are sufficiently distinguishable, as they argue in the instant motions. For these reasons, Defendant's Motion ta Dismiss for Lack of Offense, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Unconstitutional Application, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Information are denied. Defendants are free to renew these motions at a later date, when there is sufficient evidence in the record to permit their resolution.
Order Next Page