In a significant decision handed down on May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia in Metz v. The State (S25A0055) upheld the conviction of George Metz, who was charged with loitering near inmates and obstructing an officer at a Paulding County substance abuse treatment facility. This case, which centered on Metz’s First Amendment activities and his challenge to the constitutionality of a Georgia statute, offers critical insights into the balance between free speech, public safety, and the clarity of criminal laws.
Background of the Case
George Metz, a content creator, visited the Paulding County Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Facility with the intent to film its operations for his YouTube channel. His goal was to exercise his First Amendment right to record and publish content about a public facility. However, Metz’s actions led to a confrontation with Facility guards and Paulding County Sheriff’s deputies. After crossing the Facility’s clearly marked guard line—a boundary indicating restricted access near inmates—Metz refused repeated orders to leave the premises. The entire incident was captured on Metz’s audio-video recording, which later became key evidence in his trial.
Metz was arrested and charged with two offenses:
- Loitering near inmates under OCGA § 42-5-17, which prohibits lingering, loafing, or standing around where inmates are kept after being ordered to desist by Facility officials.
- Obstructing an officer, based on his refusal to comply with law enforcement’s directives to exit the property.
Before trial, Metz challenged the loitering statute, arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct, violating his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also requested a jury instruction on his First Amendment rights as a defense to the charges. The trial court rejected both arguments, and a jury found Metz guilty on both counts. Metz’s motion for a new trial was denied, prompting his appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court.
Metz’s Legal Arguments
Metz raised two primary issues on appeal:
- As-Applied Vagueness Challenge to OCGA § 42-5-17
Metz argued that the loitering statute was unconstitutionally vague because its terms—“loaf,” “linger,” “stand around,” “desist,” and “where inmates are kept”—failed to provide clear notice of what conduct was prohibited. He claimed the statute did not adequately inform him of the boundaries of restricted areas or what actions constituted a violation, thus depriving him of due process. Additionally, Metz contended that the statute’s vague language allowed for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by law enforcement, further violating constitutional standards.
- First Amendment Jury Instruction
Metz asserted that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on his First Amendment right to record in a public place as a defense to the charges. He argued that his filming was protected speech and that the statute’s application infringed on his constitutional protections.
The Georgia Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Georgia Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Bethel, affirmed Metz’s convictions, rejecting both of his arguments. Below is a detailed breakdown of the court’s reasoning:
- Constitutionality of OCGA § 42-5-17
The court conducted a de novo review of Metz’s as-applied vagueness challenge, emphasizing that statutes are presumed constitutional and that the burden lies on the challenger to prove otherwise. To satisfy due process, a statute must:
- Provide fair warning to a person of ordinary intelligence that specific conduct is prohibited.
- Offer sufficient specificity to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
Metz argued that the terms in OCGA § 42-5-17 were too vague to meet these standards. The court addressed his claims in two parts:
- Fair Warning
Metz contended that the statute’s language did not clearly define the prohibited conduct or the boundaries of “where inmates are kept.” The court disagreed, finding that the statute’s terms were sufficiently clear when viewed in the context of Metz’s actions:
- “Where inmates are kept”: The Facility’s guard line was clearly marked with a warning sign indicating that inmates were present and that unauthorized activities, such as giving contraband, were prohibited. The court held that a reasonable person in Metz’s position would understand that inmates were kept within the demarcated guard line.
- “Loaf,” “linger,” or “stand around” and “desist”: The court noted that these terms, though not previously defined in Georgia case law, have commonly understood meanings dating back to the statute’s enactment in 1903. For example, “stand” was defined as “to cease to move” or “be at rest,” and “desist” meant “to stop” or “forbear.” The prosecution focused on Metz’s act of “standing” after being ordered to leave, and the court found that his refusal to depart after multiple warnings clearly fell within the statute’s prohibitions.
The court emphasized that Metz’s challenge was not about the statute’s clarity but rather about whether the evidence sufficiently proved his violation—an issue governed by the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, not vagueness doctrine. Because Metz’s conduct (standing within the guard line after being ordered to leave) was clearly proscribed by the statute, his vagueness challenge failed.
- Arbitrary and Discriminatory Enforcement
Metz also argued that the statute’s vague terms allowed law enforcement to enforce it arbitrarily. The court rejected this claim, finding that the statute provided explicit standards for enforcement. The requirement that an individual must be ordered to desist by a Facility official before a violation occurs ensured that enforcement was not discretionary but tied to specific circumstances. The record showed that Metz was given multiple clear orders to leave, which he ignored, thus justifying the officers’ actions.
- First Amendment Jury Instruction
The court also upheld the trial court’s refusal to give a First Amendment jury instruction. While acknowledging that filming in public spaces can be protected speech, the court found that Metz’s conduct went beyond recording. By crossing the guard line and refusing to leave, Metz violated a content-neutral statute designed to protect the security of correctional facilities. The court held that the statute’s application to Metz did not target his speech but rather his unauthorized presence in a restricted area, making a First Amendment defense irrelevant to the jury’s determination.
Key Takeaways for Criminal Defense in Georgia
The Metz v. The State decision has several important implications for criminal defense attorneys and individuals engaging in First Amendment activities in Georgia:
- Clarity of Criminal Statutes
The ruling reinforces the high bar for challenging a statute as unconstitutionally vague. Courts will uphold statutes with commonly understood terms, even if they require some interpretation, as long as they provide fair warning and clear enforcement standards. Defense attorneys must carefully analyze whether a client’s conduct falls squarely within a statute’s prohibitions before pursuing a vagueness challenge.
- Balancing First Amendment Rights and Public Safety
The case highlights the limits of First Amendment protections in restricted areas. While individuals have the right to record in public spaces, this right does not grant unrestricted access to sensitive locations like correctional facilities. Defense strategies involving First Amendment claims must account for whether the conduct at issue violates content-neutral regulations, such as those protecting public safety.
- Importance of Compliance with Law Enforcement Orders
Metz’s refusal to comply with repeated orders to leave was central to his conviction. This underscores the risks of non-compliance during encounters with law enforcement, particularly in restricted areas. Defense attorneys should advise clients on the potential consequences of defying lawful orders, even in the context of exercising constitutional rights.
- Evidentiary Considerations
The fact that Metz’s own recording was used as evidence against him serves as a reminder of the double-edged nature of self-documented conduct. While such recordings can support claims of protected speech, they can also provide prosecutors with clear evidence of criminal behavior. Defense counsel must carefully review and strategize around client-generated evidence.
Conclusion
The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Metz v. The State affirms the constitutionality of OCGA § 42-5-17 and clarifies the boundaries of First Amendment protections in the context of restricted public spaces. For George Metz, what began as an attempt to exercise his free speech rights resulted in criminal convictions due to his refusal to comply with lawful orders in a sensitive area. This case serves as a cautionary tale for individuals engaging in expressive activities near correctional facilities and a reminder of the importance of understanding the legal limits of such conduct.
For those facing similar charges or navigating the complexities of criminal law in Georgia, the expertise of an experienced attorney is crucial. At George C. Creal, Jr. PC, Trial Lawyers, we specialize in defending clients against charges ranging from loitering to obstruction, ensuring that your rights are protected at every stage of the legal process. If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges, contact us today for a consultation to discuss your case and explore your defense options.
