In Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559, defendants were convicted of violating a Louisiana statute that prohibited persons from obstructing or impeding the administration of justice, or from picketing or parading " 'in or near a building housing a court of the State of Louisiana.' " ( Cox, supra, 379 U.S. at p. 560.) The United States Supreme Court addressed whether the term "in or near" was unconstitutionally vague. It concluded that while the lack of specificity might not render the statute unconstitutionally vague, where a demonstration occurred within sight and sound of a courthouse, the statute "foresees a degree of on-the-spot administrative interpretation by officials charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing it." ( Id. at p. 568.) The court concluded that demonstrators would be justified in relying on this "administrative interpretation of how 'near' the courthouse a particular demonstration might take place." ( Id. at p. 569.) The Cox court expressly concluded that the administrative discretion to construe the term "near" "is the type of narrow discretion which this Court has recognized as the proper role of responsible officials in making determinations concerning the time, place, duration, and manner of demonstrations. " ( Cox, supra, 379 U.S. at p. 569.) But this "limited administrative regulation of traffic" does not constitute "a waiver of law which is beyond the power of the police." (Ibid.) Thus, "telling demonstrators how far from the courthouse steps is 'near' the courthouse for purposes of a permissible peaceful demonstration is a far cry from allowing one to commit, for example, murder, or robbery." (Ibid.) It was undisputed in Cox that the local police chief and the sheriff had given the defendants permission to demonstrate across the street from the courthouse. ( Id. at pp. 570-571.)