Restricting a Candlelight Vigil: Condition or Prior Ban?
A civic group notifies the police of a candlelight vigil for 300 people in a city plaza on Saturday from 19:00 to 22:00 to protest a local development. The plaza is 20 m from a hospital and has a 6 m-wide pedestrian path. The police chief issues a 'notice of restriction' prohibiting loudspeakers after 20:30, limiting participants to 150, and requiring a 50 m buffer from the hospital. The group says the limit is a prior ban and files a constitutional complaint. The police cite 12 noise complaints from the hospital in the past month; the group has no record of violence. The group refuses to change the time. An alternative site 400 m away is available, but the group says it is too far from the target.
1. Is the police measure a prior restraint or a permissible condition on assembly? Apply Article 21 of the Constitution and the Assembly and Demonstration Act.
Read the worked answer
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly, and Korea uses a notification system, not a permit system. A measure is a prior restraint if its practical effect is to prevent the assembly from being held. Here the police do not ban the vigil, but the combination of a 150-person cap, a 20:30 loudspeaker cutoff, and a 50 m hospital buffer may amount to a functional ban if it makes the announced assembly impossible. The analysis should proceed in three steps. First, is there a legal basis and a legitimate aim? Protecting hospital access and patients' rest is legitimate. Second, is the measure necessary and proportionate? The police must show that less restrictive alternatives-sound-level limits, a changed route, a shorter but intact speaking period, or a designated area-would not work. Twelve complaints over a month are not enough without decibel measurements and medical evidence. Third, is the measure content-neutral? The police cannot restrict the message. A 150-person cap is arbitrary unless tied to the plaza's capacity and safety. The buffer may be valid; the cap and cutoff need stronger reasons.
2. What proportionality and procedural defects should the lieutenant flag before the notice is issued?
Read the worked answer
Before issuing the notice, the lieutenant should check four things. (1) Legal authority: identify the specific statutory provision and the facts that trigger it. (2) Reasons: the written notice must state the factual basis, including noise data, hospital impact, and crowd estimates. (3) Procedure: give the organizer a chance to submit an opinion and propose alternatives; record the response. (4) Proportionality: choose the least restrictive measure and explain why a narrower measure is insufficient. The police should also avoid conditions that discriminate against the group's viewpoint and should plan for access to the hospital, not just distance. If the organizer refuses to change the time, the police cannot use that refusal as a reason to ban the event; they must still assess the actual risk. The file should show that the police considered the 300-person estimate, the 6 m path, and the available alternative site 400 m away. A condition that is unexplained is vulnerable in administrative litigation and in a constitutional complaint.
3. If the group ignores the loudspeaker restriction and uses a megaphone at 21:00, what may police do, and what constitutional limits apply?
Read the worked answer
If the group uses a megaphone at 21:00, the police should first warn the organizer, identify the specific condition violated, and order compliance. Enforcement must be proportionate and directed at the violation, not at the assembly's message. Officers should not disperse a peaceful assembly for a sound violation alone; dispersal requires a serious and imminent danger to public safety. If the restriction is later found invalid, enforcement based on it lacks a lawful basis, and any force used may be unlawful. The police should document the sound level, the duration, and the warnings, and use the minimum force needed. Mass arrest or blocking exits is not justified by a loudspeaker violation. The lieutenant should also consider whether the condition itself was invalid, in which case the proper response is to revise the notice, not to escalate.