Man Sues City After Arrest For Dropping F-Bombs In A Local Restaurant
from the an-expensive-show-of-force dept
Just because something offends a person (or someone is offended on behalf of someone else -- more on that in a moment) doesn't mean it's illegal. And just because you're eating a meal in full uniform doesn't mean you can use your law enforcement powers to magically turn non-criminal acts into criminal ones. (via Legal Juice)
Tye Trujillo was arrested at IHOP, 3546 E. Main St. in Farmington [New Mexico], by three Farmington police officers after allegedly saying the word "F---" several times shortly before midnight on June 11, 2013, according to an arrest report.Not noted in the coverage of the story, but included in the complaint [pdf link] is this bit of information that indicates the officer wasn't personally offended, but was acting on behalf of someone he assumed to be offended. From the arrest report:
The officers — Dennis Ronk, Albert Boognl and Tamara Smith — were eating dinner at the restaurant in full uniform when the offensive language was used, the report states.
Trujillo, 32, was at the restaurant with several friends. A family with three small children were seated near them, the report states.
According to the report, Ronk approached the men and told them that if they said the word one more time, he would arrest them.
Trujillo allegedly used the word again and Ronk followed through on his threat, the report states.
Trujillo was cited for disorderly conduct and was found guilty of violating city code in Farmington Municipal Court on April 10.
I noticed a young couple sitting at a table directly behind the male subject's and there was a family of three small children (approximately 3 to 8 years of age) and two adults sitting near my location.Officer Ronk tried to gather more
After placing Plaintiff into cuffs, Officer Ronk contacted a family, which included young children, who was also patronizing the restaurant at this time and sitting near Plaintiff's table. One of the female adults at the table told Officer Ronk that she could hear the males using the "f word" but she kept the children busy and did not wish to provide information or get involved in the matter.And why would she? Presumably she knew that loud swearing in public is something that happens from time to time and, at worst, reflects negatively on the person doing it, but is not actually a criminal act. Officer Ronk painted himself into a corner by issuing a "direct order" (no, really -- that's what it says in the arrest report) to Trujillo to stop saying "Fuck" and backing it up with the threat of an arrest. Trujillo called his bluff, leaving him no choice but to follow through.
Of course, the charges didn't stick. The judge acquitted the plaintiff of the charges because saying the word "fuck" in a public space -- even a public space containing children "approximately 3 to 8 years of age" -- does not rise to the level of "disorderly conduct." The Farmington city code states that disorderly conduct (in terms of speech) must be:
"...obscene, indecent, profane challenging or other words which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction in an average person."Seeing as the mother's immediate reaction was to distract her children rather than punch Trujillo in his foul mouth, it stands to reason that the "average person" would not be "provoked into an immediate violent reaction" by the indiscriminate use of profanity. (On the other hand, directed profanities can provoke "immediate violent reactions" in some police officers, so be aware of that when combining the two.)
Because Officer Ronk couldn't resist the urge to make a public space "safe" for someone else's kids, the City of Farmington will likely be handing over a settlement to Trujillo in the near future. And once it does, constituents will be left holding the tab for a very expensive "fuck" they neither asked for nor enjoyed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arrests, curses, farmington, free speech, fuck, new mexico, offense
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I guess this just shows Officer Ronk is a below average person.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Bigger Crime Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Bigger Crime Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Bigger Crime Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Bigger Crime Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Bigger Crime Here
Think it thru.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Bigger Crime Here
As to the main story, kinda misleading, what we have here is a cop charging someone with a crime that doesn't fit. I wouldn't be surprised that if one took the time to look that there's a law against swearing in public, albeit prolly a very old law that everyone's forgotten about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Bigger Crime Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesson Learned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lesson Learned
They only go after what they consider the 'below humans' these days after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lesson Learned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more disturbing than swearing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When Hurricane season breaks out, you can use IHOP as a meter for how bad things are.
http://gizmodo.com/5836558/fema-judges-how-bad-a-hurricane-is-by-checking-if-the-waffle-house-is -open
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (IHOP v Waffle House)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess this just shows Officer Ronk is a below average person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promote him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Promote him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Promote him
Kudos to incompetence, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Promote him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disorderly Conduct
"Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when people are behaving in a disruptive manner to themselves or others, but otherwise present no serious public danger."
A typical definition of disorderly conduct defines the offense in these ways -
A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct.
"shortly before midnight" -ie (Drunk Ahole at IHOP)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disorderly Conduct
"...obscene, indecent, profane challenging or other words which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction in an average person."
Given the officer didn't feel offended (otherwise, he surely would've put that in his report), and the mother was intelligent enough to ignore it, I disagree with you. There is no victim, other than the guy who got arrested by the misguided cop.
The only disorderly conduct here was by the "officer," who disrupted a lawful assembly, and probably upset more patrons than the guy at the table did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disorderly Conduct
Hell, Trujillo might've been drunk too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mandatory skewed Pulp Fiction reference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real "crime"
And here we see the real crime in the officer's eyes: the failure of the guy to follow a direct order. This is an unfortunately common attitude with police officers. They tend to think that everyone must obey their orders no matter what. That simply isn't true, no matter how hard the cops wish it were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real "crime"
Unfortunately, it is true in my state:
Although it may not be applicable to a case like the one we are discussing - it would depend upon whether the command was "lawful" or not and in Michigan our "swearing law" was overturned by our Appeals Court in 2002.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real "crime"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real "crime"
Yes, that is true.
But it hasn't always been that way. In 2004 the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on People v. Ventura and stated that the officer's actions need not be lawful. This was overturned in 2012 with People v. Moreno and the lawful requirement was reinstated (it was common law prior to a statute change in 2002 combined with the 2004 ruling)
But in reality, all of that is really moot anyways. It's only a defense against the charges. You still can be arrested, booked, charged, have to pay a lawyer and go to court before you can actually assert that the command was unlawful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real "crime"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real "crime"
Unfortunately, the odds of contracting acute, sudden onset lead poisoning increase dramatically when you question the lawfulness of an officer's directive while his friends look on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real "crime"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real "crime"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, I can't find a copy online, but the judge dismissed the case and talked about the need for context for these kind of charges, stating "Tony's Donair Shop at 2am is not the Vatican Library". (As anyone who has ever been to Tony's at 2am can attest to).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope he gets fucking fired and fucking has to work in a fucking IHOP to support his fucking family...
Fuck him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Were these officers working at the time? If so, why were they sitting in an IHOP rather than out doing their jobs?
Why did only one of the officers get involved in the arrest?
Finally, when did IHOP start serving donuts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even cops get breaks.
Why did only one of the officers get involved in the arrest?
Cause he didn't actually know the law he was trying to enforce.
Finally, when did IHOP start serving donuts?
Good question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
read that and just laughed for a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bright side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well that escalated quickly
The cop was trying to be of service to the lady by stopping the swearing. However the cop obviously let his speech and actions get out of control and just moved to physical threats instead of just asking if the guy would stop because there were small kids in the vicinity.
While the guy does have free speech he should still be considerate of others around him. If he doesn't then yeah just like Tim said it "reflects negatively on the person doing it".
Still he shouldn't have been arrested for the swearing or disobeying an illegal order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well that escalated quickly
However, once he decided to let his ego get out of control and threatened arrest, he's no longer of any useful service to the lady, the community, his department, or his reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well that escalated quickly
It takes a little more effort to do things lawfully, but I guess that officers are too accustomed to taking short cuts or just ignoring the law altogether these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well that escalated quickly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well that escalated quickly
Regardless, the cop did a terrible job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well that escalated quickly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I applaud Officer Rank for the restraint he demonstrated in that split second he had to react.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Average person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition Of FUCK
English language today is the word fuck.
Out of all of the English words that begin with the letter "F",
fuck is the only word that is referred to as the "F" word.
Its the one magical word, just by its sound can describe
pain, pleasure, hate and love..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW9bcaEOJvg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [two different comments]
The article suggests that it was a trial de novo in ``real'' court following a conviction in municipal court. Some places still have municipal courts and it is not uncommon for the defendant to be able to demand a new trial in real court as a matter of right.
The general rule of thumb is that you cannot disturb the king's peace. In other words, someone who is not a cop has to complain or there is no disturbing of the peace.
This still leaves the police with a fair amount of discretion. We have, here in the City, a fair number of street screechers who come out on Friday afternoons to yell at people about the need to adopt their religion. It disturbs downtown businesses, downtown pedestrians, even people inside offices with windows closed can hear these guys.
A church north of town trains them in how to be loud. The training does not appear to include any reference to making salvation appealing. Indeed, if one were to judge by the street screechers, hell might be a more attractive option. However, the complaints to the police are not about the message, just the volume at which it is delivered.
Complaints are frequent, but the police have declined to act. This is probably reprehensible on their part. I suspect that if someone were to go out there and yell rude words, it would get some attention.
The cops are correctly fearful that the street screechers will at least have representation at all stages of any legal proceedings. The problem is that an arrest for the rude words would then be content-based.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meanwhile in norway
its so close to runke its amazing
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Runke
luckily we norwegians are pretty liberal :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Farmington FU's again
I suspect the officers had a long and boring night shift coming up and wanted an excuse to get out of a couple of hours alone, in a squad car, driving along empty streets. There is coffee at the jail and a chance to show domination over a "Spic". The most exciting thing to do in Farmington at midnight.
Thugs in Blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]