By Jan. 1 the first case concerning the new Nuisance Party Ordinance will be decided.

The case may not only prove whether the defendant is guilty, but may also prove the ordinance unconstitutional.

Rodney Fleming, lead legal counsel at the University’s Student Legal Services, is arguing the defendant’s case. He said the ordinance is an infringement of alleged violators’ First Amendment rights and criticizes the language of the ordinance.

“I think the statute is over-broad in that it encompasses a lot of things that the legislature and city council did not really intend to affect,” Fleming said. “You have to be able to know what a statute prohibits. I don’t think that this statute gives fair opportunity to understand that.”

Fleming is currently representing 25 University students who face minor misdemeanor charges for nuisance party citations. There have been over 50 citations issued since the ordinance was enacted Aug. 1.

Fleming’s 24 other cases are in limbo until the first case is decided.

“I think we have a good case,” Fleming said. “I think we have some very valid points.”

The First Amendment violation Fleming sees in this statute refers to a citizen’s right to assemble.

“This doesn’t mean you have the right to assemble for an illegal purpose, but the way the statute is written … it doesn’t define a party,” Fleming said. “[The ordinance] leaves it wide open for the officer’s interpretation. That means it is going to affect any type of gathering.”

But Matthew Reger, city prosecutor, believes the ordinance is legal under the constitution as well as sufficiently clear and fair to students.

Reger said he bases his argument on a 1999 Supreme Court opinion written by Justice William Rehnquist, in which the Court said viewing a social gathering as protect assembly is not the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court decision protects very personal familial relations and for free speech associated with assembly,” Reger said. “This is neither.”

If the right to assemble did encompass purely social gatherings this ordinance would still not infringe on the right to assemble, Reger said.

“It only affects illegal assembly,” Reger said.

Fleming disagrees, arguing that some of the offenses that lead to citations are outside of the party host’s control.

“That’s the problem,” Fleming said. “We are not only punishing the wrongdoer, but we are punishing the people who allowed them to come to their property.”

Fleming said he believes loud parties are an issue in town, but the previous laws were sufficient.

“It is a valid concern and I don’t mean to diminish that, because if you want to throw a party you need to take the reasonable steps so you don’t disturb neighbors or allow crimes to occur,” Fleming said. “But we are trying to balance the need to do that with the constitutional right to get together.”

The case that has already been to court may decide if the ordinance stays or not. Either way, the battle is worth waging, Fleming said.

“Since it hasn’t gone through the court system the police will probably be much more aggressive in its use if they get some court authorization that backs this statute,” Fleming said. “But if [the ordinance] doesn’t go away it could get used on some of the more intimate parties.”