Dear supermal-ga;
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to answer your interesting question.
Believe it or not, a lot has been discussed regarding this issue and
fact is, the US as a whole has yet to determine where a universal
standard ?fine line? between disorderly conduct and freedom of speech
should be constitutionally drawn when it comes to what people say, and
under what circumstances they direct it, toward a figure of authority.
Having been in law enforcement myself for more than 20 years I can
tell you that only a few short years ago a person could be charged (in
my jurisdiction at least) with disorderly conduct for simply telling a
police officer NO when given a lawful order. Much has changed since
then however and a great deal of publicity has been given to recent
cases where such a criminal charge has been successfully challenged,
affectively setting a precedent for all other cases (though each local
jurisdictional court makes it own determination).
Let me provide you with some recent examples of successfully challenged cases:
Once of the most recent cases is that of an Austin Texas man who
became inpatient in traffic and while passing a slower motorist gave
the slow-poke the middle finger. As it turned out, the slower diver
was a police officer, and he subsequently arrested the driver for
disorderly conduct (breach of peace). A Texas appeals court, just the
past October, ruled that that the use of the middle finger does not
constitute a breach of peace, even when used in anger ? police officer
or not.
COURT DOESN'T FLIP OVER 'FINGER' FROM MOTORIST
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10162003/nation_w/102342.asp
OTHER CASES:
?In one case, the court said [name removed] was exercising free speech
and wasn't threatening violence or inciting a riot when he gave a
profane two-word response to a park ranger during a 1999 disturbance.
"Criticism of the police, profane or otherwise, is not a crime," said
Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the 2-to-1 ruling throwing out [name
removed]?s disorderly conduct conviction
DEMOCRACY WATCH
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/civlib10.htm
?In the other case, a different three-judge panel unanimously
overturned [name removed]?s conviction for using the same two-word
expletive to a ranger who poked him awake in his cabin in March 2000.
. . . In overturning the disorderly conduct conviction, the appeals
court said police were expected to put up with criticism, and
profanity, without violence.?
DEMOCRACY WATCH
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/civlib10.htm
There are also some Supreme Court rulings on the matter:
?In Houston v Hill, 482 US 451; 107 S Ct 2502; 96 L Ed 2d 398 (1987),
In Houston v Hill, 482 US 451; 107 S Ct 2502; 96 L Ed 2d 398 (1987),
the US Supreme Court discussed freedom to shout criticism at public
officials. Hill was arrested under an ordinance that prohibited
actions that "oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the
execution of his duty." Hill was shouting at police, and later began
screaming at police, to divert them from trying to arrest a man. His
actions were disruptive and disorderly, and tended to interfere with
the official actions of the police officers. The Court held he could
not constitutionally be prosecuted for his words, despite his irate
tone of voice, and despite his intent to disrupt police activity:
"Contrary to the city's contention, the First Amendment protects a
significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at
police officers. 'Speech is often provocative and challenging...[But
it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless
shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious,
substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance
or unrest."
482 US at 461.
"The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police
action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal
characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police
state."
482 US at 462-3.
THE INJUSTICE LINE
http://www.injusticeline.com/freespch.html
?In Pringle v Court of Common Pleas, 778 F2d 998 (CA 3, 1985), Pringle
objected to police arresting someone. She protested the arrest by
loudly shouting in a public place "[censored GD word] [censored F
word] pigs" and "[censored F word] pig, let him go." The US Court of
Appeals held that this language was not erotic, hence not obscene, and
was therefore constitutionally protected even though loud.?
THE INJUSTICE LINE
http://www.injusticeline.com/freespch.html
According to the legal precedent set by these cases, you can indeed
say whatever you wish to a police officer as long as it is not
alarming/threatening, and it is not obscene (in terms of eroticism). A
word of caution here though ? Legal precedent takes a while to gain a
foothold and the practice in larger jurisdictions are not necessarily
viewed the same in smaller jurisdictions. Until these decisions become
the standard by which ALL jurisdictions react to such utterances, you
will continue to run the risk of being arrested for making them.
Whether you are successful in appealing your arrest or in winning a
lawsuit against the agency for false arrest is another story entirely.
In other words, for the moment at least, these precedents merely imply
that you have due recourse (appeal, civil lawsuit, etc) in the event
that you ARE arrested for it.
How can they arrest you if the Supreme Court has ruled it legal to
curse at a police officer? Simple ? the state and local laws governing
and pertaining to disorderly conduct (breach of peace) are still being
published in spite of recent rulings and are still being enforced.
Until such time as these laws are ruled unconstitutional and removed
from state and local law books, officers will, in good faith, continue
to enforce them - even if you use the disclaimer "In my opinion...".
Having said that, as it stands right now and until the long-time
"published law" catches up with the relatively recent "decided law",
you could very well find yourself in jail for engaging your mouth
before putting your brain in gear.
Below you will find that I have carefully defined my search strategy
for you in the event that you need to search for more information. By
following the same type of searches that I did you may be able to
enhance the research I have provided even further. I hope you find
that that my research exceeds your expectations. If you have any
questions about my research please post a clarification request prior
to rating the answer. Otherwise, I welcome your rating and your final
comments and I look forward to working with you again in the near
future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad ? Google Answers Researcher
INFORMATION SOURCES
Defined above
SEARCH STRATEGY
SEARCH ENGINE USED:
Google ://www.google.com
SEARCH TERMS USED:
Swearing police ?freedom of speech?
Cursing police ?freedom of speech?
Opinion police ?freedom of speech? |
