Giving Cops The Finger Is Protected Speech, Says Another Federal Court
from the learn-faster,-idiots dept
Another federal court has given its official approval of flipping the bird to cops. This isn't to say it's a wise idea, just a Constitutional one. Extending the middle finger is protected speech. Detentions or arrests that follow bird-flipping are usually unsupported by any of things officers need to have on hand (probable cause, reasonable suspicion, etc.) to deprive someone of their liberty.
Other cops have argued the hand gesture that pissed them off so much they broke the Constitution is some sort of universal distress signal. The ensuing interaction wasn't about being offended, but rather their outsized concern someone in the vehicle might be in need of assistance. Courts have found this argument literally unbelievable.
In this case, the cop being sued made no such argument. Instead, Officer Wayne Minard maintained he had probable cause to pull Debra Cruise-Guylas over again because he had only issued a warning about her speeding. The court doesn't agree with this assessment. It points out Guylas had already been pulled over for speeding. The citation ultimately issued by Officer Minard may have been for impeding traffic, but the purpose of the original stop was fulfilled when the citation was issued. No further violation had occurred when Minard pulled Guylas over a second time. From the decision [PDF]: (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)
The evidence before the Court included a state court record that established the Plaintiff had received and paid a ticket for impeding traffic. [...] While Defendant could have, at that time, issued a ticket for speeding, he did not. It was only after the initial stop had been completed, and Plaintiff drove off and "flipped the bird" that Defendant stopped her a second time without any legal justification.
Also, the cop's lawyer wasn't much help:
[A]t the September 21, 2018 hearing, Defendant's counsel conceded: "No doubt the gesture helped -- it probably was the foundation for the change of his [Defendant's] mind" [to implement a second stop] … "I can't argue around that, your Honor."
The court notes there's plenty of precedent on point that says officers can't detain people for offending them. The lawsuit proceeds and Officer Minard will have to deal with the unpleasant outcome of his idiotic actions.
The Constitution may cover giving officers the finger, but that doesn't mean officers won't make you miserable for exercising your First Amendment rights. Sure, you may gain some satisfaction from the courts, but you'll be out a lot of time and money. This isn't to say self-censorship is the way to go, but there are real costs attached to exercising your freedoms if you happen to anger the wrong [sigh] "public servant."
Government employees can violate rights in mere seconds and defend against allegations using someone else's money. Citizens don't have that luxury, which is why stupid shit like this continues to happen. A better cop would have let it go, costing no one anything. Officer Minard isn't one of those cops, and his willingness to abuse the power entrusted to him should be a major concern to his employers.
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: debra cruise-guylas, first amendment, free speech, police, probable cause, the finger, wayne minard
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The bird is the word!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The bird is the word!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The bird is the word!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it'' cost you anyway, and thats a problem
I've said it many times. You should be able to reclaim costs when being found not guilty. May not stop a butt-hurt cop, but it would give the prosecutor real pause and rethink on even charging (let alone taking all the way to trial) if losing a case means paying ALL the costs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Safe Spaces
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The bird is the word!
But she didn't flip him the bird, she gave him the finger. They're different "hand signals".
Same hand signal mate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The bird is the word!
"The finger" is simply a raised middle finger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The bird is the word!
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flipping%20the%20bird
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The bird is the word!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: it'' cost you anyway, and thats a problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
She really was a dumb-ass. When a cop pulls you over and only gives you a warning, you thank him kindly and go about your business. It may be protected speech, but she's still a dumb-ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The hawk is the talk~
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Safe Spaces
The local Dunkin’ Donuts, then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Safe Spaces
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
He chose to let her provocative gesture anger and offend him. He chose to abuse his power so he could punish her in retaliation for the gesture. Even if she made an admittedly poor decision, placing implicit blame upon her for what he did (“she really was a dumb-ass”) excuses him for his blatant abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Safe Spaces
Then we send them to Capitol Hill! Rare is the day when you see an actual person there; it’s mostly just pond scum in suits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In future headlines
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: it'' cost you anyway, and thats a problem
I would rather deal with the other problems.
When the charges are criminal the government should pay for both sides.
If the charges involve a business or fellow citizen then both sides should be limited to the side with the least spend on the case. Right down to the penny!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes and no
Officer Minard isn't one of those cops, and his willingness to abuse the power entrusted to him should be a major concern to his employers.
It should be of major concern to his future employers, and his past employers, but it shouldn't be of concern to his current employers because he shouldn't have any.
Someone displaying such a willingness to abuse his power should in no way be in a position of power, and as such he should be given the boot as soon as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Safe Spaces
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: it'' cost you anyway, and thats a problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There needs to be some balance to this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The bird is the word!
Not in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it'' cost you anyway, and thats a problem
You did read the article right? No law was broken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No one deserves punishment for the (not really a) crime of “aiming an obscene gesture at a police officer”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Here's one.. I don't know if mouthing an expletive along with your finger is going to help or be even legal though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes
In the US, the bird is a raised middle finger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it'' cost you anyway, and thats a problem
My head needs work!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are you sure your name isn't John Doe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]