## Facts

- William Steele, an adult Honolulu resident, lived with six other unrelated young adults in a private home.
- During the 1970 census, Steele refused to answer the questionnaire, returned it with two pages removed, and provided only a minimal head count by listing “six John Does and one Mary Doe.”
- A census supervisor and then a regional officer unsuccessfully attempted to obtain Steele’s compliance; officials then abandoned further collection efforts.
- Steele testified he refused to answer on constitutional grounds.
- Steele asserted that full answers could reveal a possible violation of the Honolulu zoning code (more than five unrelated persons in a single-family dwelling), creating a risk of local criminal prosecution.
- Steele publicly advocated noncompliance as part of a “census resistance” movement through press activity, marches, and leaflets criticizing the census as invasive.
- A regional census technician directed staff to prepare special files on Steele and three other vocal resisters; those four were prosecuted.
- Steele presented evidence of at least six other individuals who also refused to complete census forms but were not publicly involved in resistance activity and were not prosecuted.
- The district court convicted Steele after a bench trial of violating 13 U.S.C. § 221(a) and imposed a $50 fine.

## Issues

1. Whether Steele could invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse census questions due to potential exposure to municipal zoning prosecution.
2. Whether prosecuting Steele under 13 U.S.C. § 221(a) while not prosecuting similarly situated nonpublic refusers constituted unconstitutional selective prosecution based on First Amendment activity, in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction.
- The court declined to decide the self-incrimination question, finding reversal required on the selective-prosecution ground.
- The court held Steele was entitled to acquittal if his evidence showed authorities purposefully discriminated against those exercising First Amendment rights.
- The record supported that enforcement focused on prominent census opponents while other refusers were not prosecuted, requiring reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutorial discretion is broad but may not be exercised based on an unjustifiable standard, including retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment freedoms.
- A defendant is entitled to dismissal or acquittal upon proof of purposeful discrimination in enforcement because of constitutionally protected expression, rather than neutral enforcement considerations.
- The existence of confidentiality and immunity provisions in the census statutes did not control the appeal where the conviction was reversed on selective-prosecution grounds, leaving the self-incrimination question unresolved.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit set aside Steele’s conviction for refusing to answer census questions because the prosecution was impermissibly selective, targeting him for his public opposition to the census and thereby violating constitutional limits on enforcement decisions based on protected speech.


United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1972)