## Facts

- Connecticut enacted the “Hunter Harassment Act,” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-183a, making it a class C misdemeanor to (1) “interfere with” lawful hunting (or “acts in preparation”) with intent to prevent it, or (2) “harass” a person engaged in lawful hunting (or preparatory acts).
- The statute did not define key terms, including “interfere,” “harass,” or “acts in preparation.”
- Francelle Dorman lived near state marshlands and approached waterfowl hunters, verbally attempting to dissuade them from hunting.
- Dorman was arrested under the Act; the charge was later dismissed as premature.
- Dorman filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against state officials in their official capacities, seeking declaratory relief on the ground that the Act violated the First Amendment due to vagueness and overbreadth.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, presenting legal (not factual) disputes about the statute’s constitutionality.

## Issues

1. Whether the Hunter Harassment Act is unconstitutionally vague because its undefined terms fail to give fair notice of prohibited conduct and permit arbitrary enforcement.
2. Whether the Act is facially overbroad because it prohibits a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech relative to its legitimate applications.
3. Whether the Act can be upheld as a content-neutral regulation of conduct or a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction on speech.

## Decision

- The court granted Dorman’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants’ motion.
- The court held the Hunter Harassment Act unconstitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The court concluded the statute burdened speech, including peaceful verbal attempts to dissuade hunters.
- The court ruled the Act was unconstitutionally vague because its open-ended, undefined terms failed to provide clear standards and invited arbitrary enforcement.
- The court ruled the Act was unconstitutionally overbroad because it potentially criminalized substantial protected expression, including speech directed at hunters and speech related to “acts in preparation,” without limiting conditions.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give people of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited or authorizes arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, with heightened concern where protected speech may be chilled.
- Under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, a law may be invalidated on its face if it reaches a substantial amount of protected expression in relation to its legitimate sweep.
- Statutes restricting expression must be sufficiently tailored; broad prohibitions lacking clear limits on time, place, or manner are unlikely to survive when they encompass protected speech.

## Conclusion

The district court declared Connecticut’s Hunter Harassment Act facially unconstitutional because its undefined, expansive prohibitions on “interference,” “harassment,” and “acts in preparation” extended to protected speech (including peaceful verbal persuasion) and lacked clear standards, creating both a substantial overbreadth problem and a risk of arbitrary enforcement.


Dorman v. Satti, 678 F. Supp. 375 (D. Conn. 1988)