By Carlos Miller
Attorney Pepin Tuma probably knows the law when it comes to expressing your First Amendment rights in front of police officers. It’s something you would hope they teach in the first year of law school.
Unfortunately, Washington D.C. police haven’t a clue.
They arrested Tuma Saturday night after the 33-year-old attorney chanted, “I hate the police. I hate the police.”
The charge: Disorderly conduct.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Disorderly conduct is the charge cops use when they can’t think of an actual crime committed.
It happened in my arrest. It happened in the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Gates. And it has happened on many of the contempt of cop arrests I write about.
Tuma, who is gay, said police pushed him against an electric utility box, ordering him to “shut up, faggot.”
Tuma had spent the evening with friends complaining about the arrest of professor Gates, saying that police had overreacted.
The conversation continued as the group of friends walked down the street, coming across five or six cop cars in an apparent traffic stop on the other side of the street.
Tuma then began his chant. “I hate the police. I hate the police.”
One officer took it personal.
“Hey! Hey! Who do you think you’re talking to?” Tuma recalled the officer shouting as he strode across an intersection to where Tuma was standing. “Who do you think you are to think you can talk to a police officer like that?” the police officer said, according to Luke Platzer, 30, one of Tuma’s companions.
Tuma said he responded, “It is not illegal to say I hate the police. It’s not illegal to express my opinion walking down the street.”
The cop pushed Tuma against the utility box, calling him a faggot as he slapped handcuffs on him. Tuma spent a few hours in jail before he was released.
He has filed a complaint and is considering suing.
Every state or district has their own interpretation of disorderly conduct.
D.C.’s disorderly conduct statute bars citizens from breaching the peace by doing anything “in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others” or by shouting or making noise “either outside or inside a building during the nighttime to the annoyance or disturbance of any considerable number of persons.”
The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has said that the city’s disorderly conduct law is “confusing, overbroad, frequently used by police to harass disfavored individuals” and that it “violates constitutional rights of free speech, assembly and petition.”
In Florida, an appeals court ruled the following about disorderly conduct:
Words alone do not constitute disorderly conduct. Defendant must engage in physical contact towards an officer that affects the officers (sic) ability to do his or her job, or breach peace or otherwise incite others to act.
Ever since the arrest of professor Gates, journalists are suddenly addressing the issue of people getting arrested for contempt of cop.
New York Times columnist Maureen Down even interviewed her “friend,” Miami Police Chief John Timoney, who told her the following:
There’s a fine line between disorderly conduct and freedom of speech. It can get tough out there, but I tell my officers, ‘Don’t make matters worse by throwing handcuffs on someone. Bite your tongue and just leave.’ ”
The Miami police officers in the above picture did not get the memo.
Popularity: 1% [?]
34 responses so far ↓
1 Pinandpuller // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Maybe we need to start converting police lawsuit proceeds into six-packs.
For example: “Pepin Tuma won a stunning victory in his lawsuit today. The payout was in excess of 20,000 cases of Bud Lite, as well as an undisclosed amount of Red Seal.”
2 steveo // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Do they give IQ tests to Leo applicants? I know that the State can’t execute a person in Fl if their IQ is below a certain level. I can’t believe we give guns to these people.
3 steveo // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Man, I wish a videographer was there.
4 Mister DNA // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:39 PM
He could’ve easily avoided arrested had he displayed an equal amount of contempt for Sting’s solo work.
5 Michaelk42 // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:13 PM
@Mister DNA
Sir, you win the thread.
6 Aaron // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:48 PM
i think that’s funny. i would’ve chanted “i don’t care, i don’t care” a few times and left.
i’m sorry for the large paste following… but take a close look at (b). that’s the state statute for that specific D/O Conduct taken from http://michie.com/mississippi/
§ 97-35-3. Disorderly conduct; certain acts performed with intent to provoke breach of peace; penalties; exception.
(1) Whoever with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby:
(a) Crowds or congregates with others in or upon shore protecting structure or structures, or a public street or public highway, or upon a public sidewalk, or any other public place, or in any hotel, motel, store, restaurant, lunch counter, cafeteria, sandwich shop, motion picture theatre, drive-in, beauty parlor, swimming pool area, or any sports or recreational area or place, or any other place of business engaged in selling or serving members of the public, or in or around any free entrance to any such place of business or public building, or to any building owned by another individual, or a corporation, or a partnership or an association, and who fails or refuses to disperse and move on, or disperse or move on, when ordered so to do by any law enforcement officer of any municipality, or county, in which such act or acts are committed, or by any law enforcement officer of the State of Mississippi, or any other authorized person, or
(b) Insults or makes rude or obscene remarks or gestures, or uses profane language, or physical acts, or indecent proposals to or toward another or others, or disturbs or obstructs or interferes with another or others, or
(c) While in or on any public bus, taxicab or other vehicle engaged in transporting members of the public for a fare or charge, causes a disturbance or does or says, respectively, any of the matters or things mentioned in paragraph (b) supra, to, toward, or in the presence of any other passenger on said vehicle, or any person outside of said vehicle or in the process of boarding or departing from said vehicle, or any employee engaged in and about the operation of such vehicle, or
(d) Refuses to leave the premises of another when requested so to do by any owner, lessee or any employee thereof, shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, which is made a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than four (4) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(2) If any person shall be guilty of disorderly conduct as defined herein and such conduct shall lead to a breach of the peace or incite a riot in any of the places herein named, and as a result of said breach of the peace or riot another person or persons shall be maimed, killed or injured, then the person guilty of such disorderly conduct as defined herein shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction such person shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not longer than ten (10) years.
(3) The act of breast-feeding shall not constitute disorderly conduct.
(4) The provisions of this section are supplementary to the provisions of any other statute of this state.
Sources: Codes, 1942, § 2087.5; Laws, 1960, ch. 250, §§ 1, 2; Laws, 2006, ch. 520, § 6, eff from and after passage (approved Apr. 3, 2006.)
7 Aaron // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:03 PM
i also went to the district of columbia area of http://www.michie.com (which is powered by lexis nexus) and found the following D/O Conduct statute:
§ 22-1321. Disorderly conduct [Formerly § 22-1121].
Whoever, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby: (1) acts in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others; (2) congregates with others on a public street and refuses to move on when ordered by the police; (3) shouts or makes a noise either outside or inside a building during the nighttime to the annoyance or disturbance of any considerable number of persons; (4) interferes with any person in any place by jostling against such person or unnecessarily crowding such person or by placing a hand in the proximity of such person’s pocketbook, or handbag; or (5) causes a disturbance in any streetcar, railroad car, omnibus, or other public conveyance, by running through it, climbing through windows or upon the seats, or otherwise annoying passengers or employees, shall be fined not more than $250 or imprisoned not more than 90 days, or both.
granted.. i personally i would not have arrested him, however, it’s in plain black and white. just because you wouldn’t do it or don’t agree with it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
8 Michaelk42 // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:10 PM
But just because it’s there, doesn’t make it constitutional.
The words “vague” and “overbroad” leap to mind…
9 Carlos Miller // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:15 PM
This is why I think the ACLU is saying that it violates Constitutional rights.
http://www.aclu-nca.org/content.php?contentID=215&SID=1http://www.aclu-nca.org/content.php?contentID=215&SID=1
Even this cop blogger admits that it is not illegal to say fuck you to a cop.
http://law-chronicles.blogspot.com/2009/07/dont-tread-on-me.html
I personally wouldn’t do it because I wouldn’t do that to anybody unless we’re engaged in some heated debate.
Some times these disorderly conduct statutes need to be clarified.
The phrase I posted from an appeal in Florida was probably a result of a cop confusing free speech with disorderly conduct.
10 NYCPhotorights // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:34 PM
I’ve gotten away with a few comments over the years like conversing in a voice loud enough to be heard:
“I don’t know what all these cops are doing around here – the nearest Dunkin Donuts is 10 blocks away”
or when a cop was issuing a ticket:
“There is one meeting his quota for the day”
etc..
11 Pinandpuller // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM
I like the guy in NYC who goes around filming cops parking illegally while taking their family shopping-etc. The cops are the ones-more or less-saying “fuck you”.
12 steveo // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:46 PM
You know what we are debating, we are debating valuable law enforcement and criminal justice time and money on petty, ridiculous victimless “crimes”.
These aren’t even heinous crimes like possessing less than 20 grams of pot, public urination, drug paraphernalia, or driving without a government permit, or (gasp) solicitation of prostitution.
Have we totally lost our minds as a society? Whacking, beating, tazing, shooting people over crimes that don’t involve a victim or a crime against someone else’s property?
We actually have people here who believe that it is acceptable to act in this manner toward other human beings.
13 NYCPhotorights // Jul 31, 2009 at 1:31 AM
steveo: You are absolutely right. The irony is that when it is done in other countries we start screaming “human rights abuse”, etc.. Granted that it is not being done here on such massive a scale as say Communist China, but we are on that slippery slope and heading downwards…
14 Aaron // Jul 31, 2009 at 1:49 AM
steveo, you still don’t understand. these laws are put into effect and are conceived by people who are placed into office by popular vote, by the people for the people.
but it’s law enforcement’s fault when they’re upheld even though the people you voted into office made them into laws.
it’s astounding, it really is.
besides, a lot of you have said that ya’ll have each said things near a police officer just to see if you could get away with it.
so when you say something that you know would piss someone off just to see if you can get away with it and in the end you don’t get away with it… you get upset while stating “i was just playing around… i really didn’t mean it.. the officer didn’t have to arrest me..”
even though you said something just to get a response. it’s all fun until someone goes to jail.
that’s the equivalent of a police officer finding someone burglarizing someone’s house. the officer then chases the burglar until he finally tackles him to the ground while then handcuffing him.
while in court the burglar states that the officer used excessive force by bringing him to the ground like he did and that he would’ve stopped and got on the ground if only the police officer told him to do so.
the burglar then gets enough courage to try and sue the officer because his burglar friends all band together stating he was victimized by the officer.
do you see where i’m going with this? this is all a game. the burglar is trying to hard to get the light off of him so everyone forgets that he was STEALING someone’s belongings inside their home, and attempts to get everyone to focus on the police officer for an excessive force charge.
in the end, the burglar went to jail, and the charges he attempted to place on ME were dropped. and just for the record, i had good audio recording of me telling him to stop and get on the ground multiple times.
granted, a lot of the laws that are in effect are asinine. however, a lot of them i believe are not. for example: if someone uses profane language in public that’s fine. by all means, do what you want to do. EXCEPT when it’s around my kid, their kid, or someone else’s kid.
i don’t use that language and i don’t want my children have to listen to that language. they can make that decision on their own when they’re not living in my house years later.
the guy above stating that he hated cops… to a cop. come on now: what did you expect was going to happen?!
the guy was looking for a confrontation. you can’t deny that he wasn’t. if you want the police to leave you alone, then don’t do something stupid. it’s as simple as that.
15 Michaelk42 // Jul 31, 2009 at 6:42 AM
@Aaron
Sorry, but
“steveo, you still don’t understand. these laws are put into effect and are conceived by people who are placed into office by popular vote, by the people for the people.”
The Tyrany of the Majority and the fact that something that’s a law is good regardless of its constitutionality (not a very mature view of law) and
“but it’s law enforcement’s fault when they’re upheld even though the people you voted into office made them into laws.”
the “we were just following orders” defense aren’t going to fly here.
(Nor will “It’s for the children!”)
“the guy above stating that he hated cops… to a cop. come on now: what did you expect was going to happen?!”
I don’t expect, but what should happen: The cop should be the adult in the situation, and be professional enough to not let his actions be directed by his emotions.
Someone who uses his position of power to silence or punish someone who merely says something he doesn’t like is a bully, and worthy only of contempt, not respect.
Someone who can be a mature adult, “the bigger man” in this case, and not abuse their power in order to punish, that person I can respect.
16 Aaron // Jul 31, 2009 at 9:01 AM
michaelk42, perhaps the “bigger man” should be the one NOT trying to start a fight by saying “i hate cops.”
two wrongs don’t make a right. we all know this. but there are a lot of people out there that believe in the laws that you disagree with.
he put himself in that position and when he did, he apparently felt that he was wrongfully charged and is contemplating a lawsuit.
perhaps i’m not being clear enough or maybe i’m just not being very articulate, but when you go out looking for a confrontation, find one, and then become surprised because it’s more than what you were looking for…
he shouldn’t have been doing that to begin with. the real issue isn’t what the cop did. the real issue should be :
Whoever, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby: (1) acts in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others;
police officers have the right to arrest someone for offending them. just because you think they should all have hard skin that they should just overlook verbal abuse in any form doesn’t make it right.
if you don’t like it, then change it. i see a lot of complaining about the laws people don’t believe in but i don’t see a lot of action changing them.
back to the noise ordinance issue. should people violating the noise ordinance that refuse to turn their offensive music be arrested for it?
what if they fall back on “freedom of speech and expression” ? that excuse is being used on a lot of things just so they can do whatever they want without repercussion.
i’d like to see what you really think when the situation is reversed and you’re trying to sleep at night because you have to get up early in the morning.
i really don’t know what else to say that i haven’t already said. multiple times.
17 Mathemagician // Jul 31, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Aaron, are you saying that we should be careful what we say around cops, even if it isn’t reprehensible? Understandably, direct insults and threats certainly are reprehensible, but unless I missed something, what he did was express his opinion about police officers in front of them, and even in passing. In the mind of the cop who cuffed him, apparently this justified the arrest and also justified insulting the man’s sexuality.
Maybe legally, yes, he could have been arrested (and then have the charges dropped as usual). However… why? Because the cop has anger issues like many? Again, this is an intelligence call. The smart cop with some reasonable semblance of human self-confidence would forgo the internal anger fit and move on. Intelligence… that is the problem. Intelligence is not some that is required to be a police officer. Police departments (those I know of) do not require schooling. Cops don’t have the take the SAT or ACT. Whether or not schooling increases intelligence is of course debatable. In fact I might argue that it doesn’t mean a damn thing. However, this would be beside the point: The officer can cook up any charge he or she wants to arrest anyone he or she wants to arrest. But should we really be wasting our time on it?
Aaron you are right about the laws which need changing. However, I think that the laws the do need to be changed are those which govern who gets to become a cop and who does not.
This is still a country in which he/she who shouts the loudest is the most popular to the masses, and hence wins the votes. The majority of human beings err on the side of ignorance; we don’t care about the law until it starts making our lives miserable, which is usually eventually the case. No one likes to process the logic. It all comes down to logic.
18 Mathemagician // Jul 31, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Aaron, are you saying that we should be careful what we say around cops, even if it isn’t reprehensible? Understandably, direct insults and threats certainly are reprehensible, but unless I missed something, what he did was express his opinion about police officers in front of them, and even in passing. In the mind of the cop who cuffed him, apparently this justified the arrest and also justified insulting the man’s sexuality.
Maybe legally, yes, he could have been arrested (and then have the charges dropped as usual). However… why? Because the cop has anger issues like many? Again, this is an intelligence call. The smart cop with some reasonable semblance of human self-confidence would forgo the internal anger fit and move on. Intelligence… that is the problem. Intelligence is not some that is required to be a police officer. Police departments (those I know of) do not require schooling. Cops don’t have the take the SAT or ACT. Whether or not schooling increases intelligence is of course debatable. In fact I might argue that it doesn’t mean a damn thing. However, this would be beside the point: The officer can cook up any charge he or she wants to arrest anyone he or she wants to arrest. But should we really be wasting our time on it?
Aaron you are right about the laws which need changing. However, I think that the laws the do need to be changed are those which govern who gets to become a cop and who does not.
This is still a country in which he/she who shouts the loudest is the most popular to the masses, and hence wins the votes. The majority of human beings err on the side of ignorance; we don’t care about the particular law until it starts making our lives miserable, which is usually eventually a lot of cases (Iraq war?). No one likes to process the logic until we’re at last at the inevitable breaking point. Just remember that stupid people can do anything in this country. Anything.
I guess what I mean to say is that there are a lot of things (laws and other things) which look grand on paper, but which fail miserably in practice, and too often people who know better don’t say anything for lack of will power.
Personally, I wish I had the patience to deal with politics and become an activist. I just like my math and science enough, and a lot of people like me shelter themselves from this junk.
19 Mathemagician // Jul 31, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Sorry for the partial double post. My browser took a crap and told me I was not allowed to edit my own post. Anybody know why? I’m using Firefox in Linux.
20 steveo // Jul 31, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk?
Yes, judge, the defendant in his confession said, “I shot the clerk. I shot the clerk.”
21 steveo // Jul 31, 2009 at 1:34 PM
My son had a jam group that played in the garage. They always quit about 10 pm as per my instructions. He and his band members were sitting by the tv about 11 watching a movie. Cop comes to the door. Tells my son, he got a noise complaint. Conversation went something like this.
Leo: We got a noise complaint.
son: Yeah?
uncomfortable silence for a while
leo: We got a noise complaint.
son: It doesn’t sound too noisy now, does it?
leo: Let me see some ID.
son: I’m going to get my Dad.
He wakes me up and I’m pissed. I come to the door and the guy had already left. So much for Aaron’s view of life.
22 Tom // Jul 31, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Once again Carlos Miller shows his blind bias by immediately believing the man arrested. He doesn’t even bother getting the cop’s side of the story.
And he calls himself a journalist.
23 genewitch // Jul 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM
aaron said: “police officers have the right to arrest someone for offending them. just because you think they should all have hard skin that they should just overlook verbal abuse in any form doesn’t make it right.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Police do NOT have the right to arrest someone that is offending them. In fact, it’s in the FUCKING CONSTITUTION. Perhaps someday you could study law, god willing.
also, aaron: what gives the police the right to be bigoted assholes and call him a “faggot”?
Essentially here’s how the discussion went.
I hate cops
I hate gay people
Person with handcuffs and gun arrests the other one.
24 genewitch // Jul 31, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Tom: In case you were curious, people who report news on their own property (like a website) don’t have to be unbiased.
I’d like to meet a reporter that was completely unbiased… perhaps you can name one so i can see deeper into your psychology?
25 Michaelk42 // Jul 31, 2009 at 3:54 PM
@Aaron
And you seemed so reasonable.
“michaelk42, perhaps the “bigger man” should be the one NOT trying to start a fight by saying ‘i hate cops.’”
If your going to justify it with “B-b-but HE started it!” then, no. The “bigger man” has control over his emotions, not the other way around. So I would have to say you’re dead wrong.
“two wrongs don’t make a right. we all know this. but there are a lot of people out there that believe in the laws that you disagree with.”
It’s not me that disagrees with these laws; it’s constitutional muster that these laws fail to meet. It doesn’t matter how many people agree with them. A lot of people agreed with slavery and segregation and… well, you see how that went. Tyranny of the Majority doesn’t justify a law or make it constitutional.
“he shouldn’t have been doing that to begin with.”
You may feel that way, but it doesn’t matter. He has a constitutional right to that speech. The First Amendment isn’t meant to just protect speech the majority agrees or feels comfortable with – that speech doesn’t need protection – it’s there to protect unpopular speech. Deal.
“…interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others;
police officers have the right to arrest someone for offending them. ”
Wrong. Vague and overbroad as written. Just because it’s the law doesn’t mean it’s correct. Just because it hasn’t been challenged in your specific jurisdiction doesn’t mean it will fly. Legislators can write all the dumb laws they want, and they can stick on the books, until someone has the money and the time to smack it down.
“just because you think they should all have hard skin that they should just overlook verbal abuse in any form doesn’t make it right.”
Sure, people are jerks. If you can’t take it without arresting people, don’t be a cop. Strangely enough I’ve managed to deal with difficult and annoying people in my jobs without cuffing, tasing, beating or otherwise visiting retribution on the person bothering me. Everyone else has to overlook such non-criminal abuse. Why shouldn’t police?
“what if they fall back on ‘freedom of speech and expression’ ? that excuse is being used on a lot of things just so they can do whatever they want without repercussion.”
Time, place and manner restrictions ARE constitutional. In this case we’re not talking about the content offending someone; we’re talking about the decibel level. Content-neutral regulations are objective and fine.
For example, having to be under 85 decibels during a certain time frame is having to be under 85 decibels during that time, regardless of whether the person is calling you a cock or not.
“i really don’t know what else to say that i haven’t already said. multiple times.”
And you’d still be wrong on these points, I’m afraid.
26 NYCPhotorights // Jul 31, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Uttering the phrase “I hate the police” is a constitutionally protected opinion. It is directed against a government institution which we have every right to criticize and/or oppose. Any law that s used to prohibit such speech is unconstitutional. I would like to see this case go to the Supreme Court if it has to and I hope the police force that arrested this man is sued for megabucks!!
27 EdinTally // Jul 31, 2009 at 4:21 PM
An officer’s badge is a de facto “Shit Shield”.
If you can’t handle taunts: get a new career
If you don’t like being called names: get a new career
If you can’t control your anger: get a new career
Aaron, given your statements, you are either not really a cop OR you should get a new career. It isn’t a job for boys who like shiny toys.
Almost forgot: I smell wealth redistribution!
28 steveo // Jul 31, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I just can’t believe that more cops don’t have a sense of humor. I would have gone over to the guy and told him, “You sing I hate the police and I’ll sing I hate criminals and we’ll do a duet” and see if we can get it on you tube.
29 Carlos Miller // Jul 31, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Tom,
Here is the cop’s side of the story.
A police spokeswoman said Tuma’s complaint is being investigated but would not comment further.
Feel better?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003955.html
30 Mathemagician // Jul 31, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Edin Tally: Yeah they should get another goddamn career, but why would they when they can get away with incidents like this one by lying to a jury because their word is more than that of a citizen’s? Remember: anger issues generally means they want to let it out and where better than the general population?
31 Mathemagician // Jul 31, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Isn’t the Mickey Mouse stuff by Hollywood cops enough to scare the wits out of everyone? Listen to how accustomed those guys sounded to just manifesting it all from thin air. This case is no different. You could also make a case that it was a hate-influenced arrest.
32 Foo Bar // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM
The way we solve this is to require police to wear audio/video recorders that record all the actions they take and all the actions that occur around them as long as they are on duty. Then there is a record of both their legal and illegal action. As soon as we require this, the problems will stop. Video recorders are now as small as cell phones and smart phones can have 32 GB or more of memory, enough for 40 or more hours of high quality A/V recording. We should demand police and other armed public servants submit to recording while they are armed and on duty.
33 Michaelk42 // Aug 4, 2009 at 4:06 PM
@Pinandpuller
Dude. WHICH upside-down-american-flag-cop story?
I think the one I remember had a porch and a deputy invading a house or something. Don’t remember if it was Texas or not.
34 segdae22 // Mar 29, 2010 at 5:30 PM
As stated by many of the above posters, the law on the books in DC states:
Whoever, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby: (1) acts in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others; [...]
Now, is that aspect of the law unconstitutional? Most likely but that really IS a case for the courts. Unfortunately, under the law, the cop had the right to make the arrest even though he shouldn’t have. This is a clear violation of freedom of speech but not on behalf of the cop but rather on behalf the city ordinance.
But if thats the case and the cop can arrest him for “acts in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others” then why was the cop not arrested for calling the defendant a “faggot”. As a gay man, I find that term HIGHLY offensive, especially coming from a public servant. So the cop has also violated the ordinance and should be arrested for disturbing the peace.
Leave a Comment