Around 7pm on Saturday September 29, 2018, Cambridge police and fire officials barged into a wine bar after seeing 5 to 10 lighted votive candles (contained safely in glass) burning on the bar and tables.
Cambridge’s finest ordered the owners to immediately extinguish the candles. The owners refused and demanded to know what law they were violating.
According to court documents, “[t]he officials attempted to read aloud a law purportedly governing the use of the candles.” Officials then extinguished the candles, ordered employees to turn off the bar’s music, and shut down the establishment.
With their heroic work done, the officials began to leave when one of the bar owner’s said “you will live to regret this.”
A few weeks later the Cambridge licensing commission suspended the bar’s liquor license for five days. The suspension was based on (1) a fire safety violation, (2) hindering an investigation, (3) intimidating a witness and (4) threatening a public official.
The owners appealed the decision to the state’s Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC). Although the ABCC reduced the suspension to just three days, it still concluded that the owners had in fact violated the law. The ABCC’s ruling was challenged and upheld in Superior Court.
Ultimately the owners appealed the matter to the Appeals Court.
The Appeals Court reversed the suspension because it was based on an error of law made by Cambridge police and fire.
According to the justices,
the board had charged and violated the plaintiff for a section of law pertaining to the use of candles with portable cooking equipment, and it was undisputed the candles at the [plaintiff’s] establishment were not used for portable cooking equipment. Accordingly, such a violation could not stand. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
The Appeals Court also rejected the idea that the owners were hindering law enforcement:
the officials were not seeking any “information as may be required for the proper enforcement of [the law]; to the contrary, the owners were seeking information from the officials relating to the law that they claimed to be enforcing. The charge of hindering cannot be sustained.
Lastly, the justices refused to believe that the owner’s “you will live to regret this” statement amounted to a threat or intimidation.
There is no dispute that Courtney’s statement was taken as nothing other than an intention to file a complaint against the conduct of government officials. No matter how aggressive the tone, the statement does not constitute a “true threat” which may deprive it of First Amendment protection.
The full opinion is attached below.