The Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance prohibiting anyone from knowingly spectating a sideshow event on a public street or highway from within 200 feet of the event (Ordinance). A sideshow involves drivers taking over intersections and performing stunts with their cars; sideshows typically draw large crowds, which further impede traffic and create very hazardous conditions.
Jose Antonio Garcia was a reporter for The Oaklandside. Before the County adopted the Ordinance, Garcia had published an article mapping every report of a sideshow made to Oakland police from January 2019 to November 2022. Garcia planned to conduct on-site reporting on sideshows by personally observing and recording the events within 200 feet.
After the County passed the Ordinance, however, Garcia cancelled his reporting plans. He was concerned that the Ordinance applied to the type of on-site reporting he planned to conduct. Garcia feared citation, arrest, and criminal prosecution if he continued as planned.
In 2024, Garcia filed a complaint against the County, arguing that the Ordinance violated his First Amendment rights. He then sought an injunction prohibiting the County from enforcing the Ordinance against him. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the First Amendment did not apply as the Ordinance did not specifically bar recording a sideshow event, and that the ordinance was more concerned with the location of bystanders. Garcia appealed.
The California Court of Appeal reversed and held that Garcia was entitled to an injunction as he was likely to prevail on his First Amendment claim. The Court found that Garcia’s activities, including his observation and recording of sideshows, were protected speech under the First Amendment because newsgathering is integral to expression. The Court rejected the County’s argument that Garcia’s “mere observation” was non-expressive. The Court found that observing events is inseparable from recording and reporting them, and restricting Garcia’s observations allowed the government to suppress speech indirectly. The Court concluded that the Ordinance directly burdened Garcia’s First Amendment rights.
The Court also found that the Ordinance was presumptively unconstitutional because it contained a content-based restriction. The Ordinance singled out those who watched sideshows within 200 feet, while allowing others to gather within 200 feet for any other purpose. That flaw meant that officials had to look at the purpose of someone’s presence and speech within the 200-foot zone of a sideshow to decide if the law applied.
The Court explained that although protecting public safety was an important goal, the County already had many other laws to address dangers like reckless driving, violence, or vandalism without restricting speech so broadly. The Court concluded that the Ordinance violated Garcia’s First Amendment rights because it unfairly targeted spectators, lacked proof that they were more dangerous than others at the scene, and was not carefully tailored to its safety goals.
Garcia v. County of Alameda, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22860 (9th Cir. Sep. 4, 2025).