Probable Cause Doesn't Excuse Retaliatory Arrest, Supreme Court Rules
from the you-can-be-technically-correct-but-still-completely-wrong dept
A very, very narrow ruling by the Supreme Court might provide a few more opportunities for citizens to seek redress for retaliatory acts by their government. This probably won't do much for Fane Lozman, unfortunately. He may have won the big battle but it's being remanded to the appeals court which has a lot of options on how to approach this and not many of them point to Lozman winning this lawsuit.
Lozman was no fan of the Riviera Beach (FL) city council. He attended many meetings to criticize council members and their plans to use eminent domain to seize waterfront homes. He also sued the city for violating open meetings law by approving an agreement with developers without allowing the issue to be publicly discussed first.
The city didn't know what to do with a problem like Lozman. In a 2006 closed door session, it decided to do something it shouldn't. From the decision [PDF]:
According to the transcript of the meeting, Councilmember Elizabeth Wade suggested that the City use its resources to “intimidate” Lozman and others who had filed lawsuits against the City. App. 176. Later in the meeting a different councilmember asked whether there was “a consensus of what Ms. Wade is saying,” and others responded in the affirmative.
Lozman said these comments should be taken at face value. The city argued that by "intimidation" it meant only to prevail in litigation by using available tax dollars against taxpayers like Lozman. Five months later, Lozman attended another council meeting and, again, complained about various city actions. Council members ordered him removed -- an act performed by the officer on duty.
Lozman sued the city, alleging the arrest was retaliatory and an infringement on his First Amendment rights. The city defended itself by claiming the officer had probable cause to arrest Lozman because of his refusal to leave the meeting voluntarily. Lozman does not contest the arrest or question the probable cause determination. He does not challenge the constitutionality of the city ordinance used to effect his arrest. His issue is stripped down to one thing: the arrest stemmed directly from the council's agreement to "intimidate" Lozman and other litigants.
This means the single narrow issue, as constructed in Lozman's case, is worth examining further, rather than simply being overlooked in favor of the existence of probable cause. If left unaddressed (and the Supreme Court has punted on far broader cases than this), it would ostensibly allow governments to engage in retaliatory acts with little fear of punishment.
The fact that Lozman must prove the existence and enforcement of an official policy motivated by retaliation separates Lozman’s claim from the typical retaliatory arrest claim. An official retaliatory policy is a particularly troubling and potent form of retaliation, for a policy can be long term and pervasive, unlike an ad hoc, on-the-spot decision by an individual officer. An official policy also can be difficult to dislodge. A citizen who suffers retaliation by an individual officer can seek to have the officer disciplined or removed from service, but there may be little practical recourse when the government itself orchestrates the retaliation. For these reasons, when retaliation against protected speech is elevated to the level of official policy, there is a compelling need for adequate avenues of redress.
This doesn't mean Lozman will prevail upon return to the lower court. It may decide to kick this all the way back to the district court level to let a jury weigh in on the "reasonable" interpretation of the council's intimidation comments. But it does at least make one thing clear: the highest court says lawsuits alleging retaliation can be brought even if probable cause exists for arrests stemming from allegedly retaliatory actions/instructions. This is more than litigants used to have to work with to survive dismissal during the summary judgment round. Criticizing the government is what the First Amendment was put in place to protect above all else. Allowing government entities to sidestep this protection by arresting their critics doesn't do anything to ensure these protections retain their value.
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: 4th amendment, fane lozman, probable cause, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are enough laws that anyone is guilty of something
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What'd be even better is if the court ruled that since the government has no authority to retaliate in this manner and the councilmembers knew or should have known this, their actions cannot have been in the course of their duties and they are personally liable for the damages (and if they want the city to pay they'll have to sue it themselves).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
They would have to make it that all government workers would have to know all laws. Not a terrible idea, legislatures would have to reduce the number of laws for their own protection. I kind of like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Personally to bankrupt the Sons of bitches, and government liable so the guy gets compensation, and during elections every single one of these pieces of crap gets whats coming to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is their fiefdom that they can rule however they want.
So what if we violate the law, we are the law.
Anyone speaking against us must be crushed!!
Then a larger power told them no & then it was when we said 'OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!!' we really meant to have him politely asked to remove his hat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And yet... people continue to ask to give those with that damage more power.
"You get the politicians you deserve."
~Obama
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's not a problem anymore, in fact, I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article. Fane Lozeman is the only man alive to have taken two cases to the Supreme Court as the plaintiff and not a lawyer and won. The first one was his original eminent domain case which started in 2006 and which he won (in a phyric victory given the fact that it had already been seized and destroyed) in 2013. In November 2006, while the first case was winding through the courts, is when this arrest occurred triggering this case which he has apparently also now (partially, at least) won.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: BTW
Sorry, I don't like it either, but that's the way the ball is currently bouncing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]