Question

The Village of Glendale, Ohio, passed an ordinance that prohibited parking a vehicle on a public road for the purposes of displaying it for sale. Pagan, a resident of Glendale, parked his car on a public street and posted a “For Sale” sign on the vehicle. A Glendale police officer warned Pagan to take the sign or face a citation for violating the ordinance. Pagan filed suit against the Village of Glendale and Fruchey, Glendale's chief of police (collectively, “Glendale”), claiming that the ordinance was an unconstitutional infringement of his First Amendment commercial speech rights. Glendale contended that its ordinance satisfied the requirements under Central Hudson because the government has a substantial regulatory interest in traffic and pedestrian safety. No data or research was presented at trial, but the chief of police testified as to his opinion. After the trial court dismissed Pagan's claim, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in favor of Pagan because there was not a sufficient connection between Glendale's asserted interest (traffic safety) and government regulation (Part Three of the Central Hudson test).

CASE QUESTIONS 1. Could the ordinance itself be modified to meet the third part of the Central Hudson test? 2. What types of data do you suppose the court wanted from Glendale to support the village's claim that the ordinance advanced its traffic safety interest? Why didn't the court give more weight to the police chief's opinion?

Answer 1

Summary of the case:

• A pagan parked his car and kept a sign as ‘For Sale’ on the vehicle. Which is not accepted by the glendale police officer.
• Pagan filed a suit against the village of glendale and fruchery.
• Glendale contended that its ordinance satisfied the requirements under Central Hudson because the government has a substantial regulatory interest in traffic and pedestrian safety.
• No data or research was presented at trial, but the chief of police testified as to his opinion. After the trial court dismissed Pagan's claim, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in favor of Pagan because there was not a sufficient connection between Glendale's asserted interest and government regulation.

Answers:

1. It is a commercial expression of taking the things and handling them in an order to follow certain rules and regulations which were created by the goverment for the people in the society. Yes, the ordinance itself is modified to meet the third part of central hudson test as itself says that every individual have their own rights to put the situation infront of court to get the desired results.
2. As there is no valid proof to prove glendale point, the court couldn’t gave the weightage to it and as per the first amendment laws – everyone has a right to opt freedom of speech the pagan opted to it and changed the entire scenario and showcased it in a different manner where the glendale didn’t get a chance to prove the point and also lost weightage infront of court.

Types of data court wanted from glendale could be:

• A valid script of the entire scenario.
• Pictures or video what the pagan is doing.
• Valid laws to be used for violating such situation.
• A specified example – previous records of pagan (Police recods)

These are the few data types can be used to prove glendale point and also the situation can be analyzed in such different scenario.