Appeals Court Affirms State Trooper Who Responded To An F-Bomb With An Arrest Owes $15k In Legal Fees

from the I-told-you-once-and-I-told-you-twice/But-you-never-listen-to-my-advice dept

By now, there's enough case law in place that law enforcement officers should definitely know it's a violation of rights to arrest someone for momentarily offending them. Even without the case law, these officers know it's not okay to bust people for flipping them off or yelling expletives in their general direction. That's why those that do, buttress their rights violations with absurd claims that doing these things "disturbs the peace" or violates any other "contempt of cop" law that can be deliberately misread to criminalize hurting a cop's feelings.

But cops persist in engaging in retaliatory acts that target protected speech. And the most protected speech of all is criticism of the government, even if it's nothing more than a fleeting expletive or the bird being delivered by the passenger of a passing car.

This refusal to let bygones be bygones when the moving vehicle has moved on is going to cost taxpayers some money. A case already decided by the Eighth Circuit Appeals Court in favor of the citizen setting up Arkansas State Trooper Lagarian Cross with the F-bomb now has a much more expensive price tag.

The original 2019 decision refused to grant Trooper Cross qualified immunity. It also awarded the swear Eric Thurairajah nominal damages: one US dollar. Here's a brief rundown of the facts behind the first visit to the Appeals Court, as well as setting the stage for the Eighth Circuit's second pass.

In 2015, Trooper Cross was performing a routine traffic stop on a van pulled to the shoulder of a busy five-lane highway in Fort Smith, Arkansas. From 50 feet away, Trooper Cross heard Thurairajah, who was driving by, yell "f**k you!" out of his car window. The van's occupants were a mother and her two young children. Thurairajah was driving at about 35 miles-per-hour on the far lane of the road moving in the opposite direction. Trooper Cross observed the two children in the van react to the yell. Trooper Cross ended the traffic stop of the van and pursued Thurairajah, stopped him, and arrested him, citing Arkansas's disorderly conduct law. Trooper Cross believed the shout constituted "unreasonable or excessive noise" under the law. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-207(a)(2).

Thurairajah spent several hours in jail but then was released and all charges against him were dropped. He filed a § 1983 lawsuit against Trooper Cross alleging the trooper violated his First Amendment right to be free from retaliation and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. Trooper Cross moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied qualified immunity on both claims after concluding Trooper Cross's arrest violated Thurairajah's clearly established constitutional rights.

"Clearly established." No qualified immunity. The trooper's appeal netted him nothing but an affirmation of both the lower court's decision and the clear establishment of the right he had violated.

The second pass by the appeals court doesn't bother affirming anything that hasn't already been said twice. But it does help Trooper Cross dig himself an even more expensive hole with his inability to accept his loss gracefully. From the decision [PDF]:

The court sua sponte entered an order in limine precluding Thurairajah from presenting a punitive-damages argument to the jury. At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Trooper Cross’s actions were not the proximate cause of Thurairajah’s damages and awarded him nothing. The district court subsequently awarded nominal damages of $1.00 to Thurairajah. Thurairajah moved for a new trial, alleging that defense counsel acted inappropriately and that the district court should not have admitted evidence of a collateral source at trial. The district court denied the motion. Thurairajah moved for attorney’s fees, and the district court awarded attorney’s fees of $15,100.00.

Trooper Cross appealed this decision. He needn't have bothered. The fees award is affirmed, meaning whoever's indemnifying the state trooper will be paying $15,000 in legal fees to the plaintiff.

And the concurrence says the Eighth Circuit may have misread state law to give the trooper a pass on the plaintiff's state law claims. According to Arkansas law, no immunity may be awarded if the officer's violation of someone's rights is "malicious." The Eighth Circuit says nothing on the record supports the claim Trooper Cross's arrest was a "conscious violation of the law." The concurrence says that take is wrong. There's plenty on the record suggesting otherwise.

Thurairajah described the arrest as “hostile,” “violent,” and “personal.” He testified that Trooper Cross yelled at him to get out of the car, walked towards him “fast,” and asked him if he “thought that s**t was cute.” Thurairajah also testified that Trooper Cross was “aggressively moving [him] around” during the arrest, was “very aggressive through all the searches [of him],” and “was obviously very angry.” At one point, Trooper Cross told Thurairajah, “You can’t talk to cops like that; you can’t yell F-you to a cop.” And at the jail later, Thurairajah heard Trooper Cross tell someone, “This kid said ‘F**k you’ to a cop; so I thought I would bring him in.” Viewing these facts in Thurairajah’s favor, a jury could reasonably conclude that Trooper Cross arrested Thurairajah not because he believed Thurairajah engaged in disorderly conduct, but because he was angered by the profanity Thurairajah directed at him. And given that it was clearly established at the time that “[c]riticism of law enforcement officers, even with profanity, is protected speech,” Thurairajah v. City of Fort Smith, 925 F.3d 979, 985 (8th Cir. 2019) (first citing City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987); and then citing Hoyland v. McMenomy, 869 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2017)), a jury could conclude that Trooper Cross consciously violated the law or arrested Thurairajah “without just cause or excuse, [and] with an intent to inflict injury,” Fuqua, 20 S.W.3d at 391 (quoting Malice, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)).

But that's the concurrence and Trooper Cross is lucky to escape only $15k lighter in the (collective, taxpayer-funded) wallet.

Almost everywhere in this country it's clearly established that expletives and middle fingers are protected speech, even when they target police officers. Every officer that engages in a retaliatory arrest is only creating more precedent that separates them from their dearly beloved qualified immunity. Smart cops don't blow judicial goodwill on foul-mouthed randos. But there appears to be more than enough dumb cops willing to indulge their worst impulses, ensuring an unfortunately steady stream of increasingly redundant federal court decisions.

Filed Under: arkansas, free speech, lagarian cross, police, retaliation

Federal Court Blocks Unconstitutional Arkansas Law That Prevents Plant-Based Food Companies From Using Meat Words

from the judiciary-once-again-asked-to-fix-stupid dept

Another case of nonexistent "customer confusion" is being litigated. Tofurky, the maker of several vegetable-based products, sued the state of Arkansas over its bogus [squints at Legiscan in disbelief] "Act To Require Truth In Labeling Of Agricultural Products That Are Edible By Humans" law.

The law, written at the behest of meat and dairy lobbyists, claims customers are "confused" by non-meat products that use meat-like words in their product descriptions. A law similar to this passed in Mississippi was recently found unconstitutional by a federal court, resulting in legislators rewriting the law to make it less, um, unlawful.

The Arkansas law has an added bonus not found elsewhere: wording targeting the use of phrase "cauliflower rice." Why? Because Arkansas is home to the nation's largest rice industry.

Not that any consumers were actually confused. If they had been, they would have approached lawmakers. Instead, the entities approaching legislators were entrenched interests claiming shoppers were too stupid to figure out veggie burgers don't contain meat.

That law is now on death's door, having been savaged by a federal judge calling bullshit on the state's willingness to violate the First Amendment to make certain industries happy. (via AgWeek)

The ruling [PDF] blocks the state from enforcing the law while the rest of the particulars are sorted out, but it seems clear there's no way the state can salvage this terrible legislation. Tofurky pointed out the law contains no exceptions for makers of plant-based meat alternatives, meaning the company has almost zero chance of ever complying fully with the law, even if it retools its packaging (at an estimated cost of $1,000,000) and does everything it can to keep Arkansas consumers from viewing ads targeting shoppers in states not saddled with idiotic laws.

The state argued that Tofurky's use of words like "sausage," "kielbasa," "burger," and "ham" confuse consumers despite Tofurky also using words like "white quinoa," "all vegan," "plant-based," and a big "V" to distinguish its vegetarian and vegan products from the meats they emulate. The court says this argument is ridiculous.

The State appears to believe that the simple use of the word “burger,” “ham,” or “sausage” leaves the typical consumer confused, but such a position requires the assumption that a reasonable consumer will disregard all other words found on the label.

[...]

That assumption is unwarranted. The labels in the record evidence include ample terminology to indicate the vegan or vegetarian nature of the products. Additionally, “[t]here is no contention that any [consumer or potential consumer] was actually misled or deceived by” Tofurky’s packaging, labeling, or marketing.

It also pulls a delicious quote from a 2013 decision dealing with a different state's attempt to carve out exceptions to the First Amendment on behalf of favored industries.

“Under Plaintiffs’ logic, a reasonable consumer might also believe that veggie bacon contains pork, that flourless chocolate cake contains flour, or that e-books are made out of paper.”

The court says the law is likely to be found unconstitutional. The state had other options to use to limit consumer confusion but decided to specifically craft a law that harmed plant-based food manufacturers and their free speech rights.

Tofurky identifies several in-effect federal and state laws directed at prohibiting deceptive labeling and marketing of food products, and consumer products more generally, with which Tofurky contends its food labeling complies; these laws have not been enforced against Tofurky’s labels based on the record evidence before the Court (Dkt. Nos. 1, ¶¶ 21-33; 15, at 11- 12). There also is no convincing argument as to why each of these laws is ineffective at policing the alleged deceptive or confusing practices the State purports to target. Further, as opposed to the prohibition in Act 501, the State could require more prominent disclosures of the vegan nature of plant-based products, create a symbol to go on the labeling and packaging of plant-based products indicating their vegan composition, or require a disclaimer that the products do not contain meat if further laws are deemed necessary to advance its stated purpose.

Because it went this route, the new law may as well have never been written, massaged, and put into effect. The state is blocked from enforcing it until Tofurky finishes succeeding on its First Amendment claims. Yeah, I'm writing it that way because that's the only way this is going to turn out. The state doesn't have a compelling argument up its sleeve that's going to reverse what's seen in this injunction order.

If legislators are going to close their minds and open their ears when lobbying dollars come calling, they're going to end up creating stupid crap that puts Constitutional rights on the back burner to allow a few powerful incumbents to make a few extra dollars. Fortunately, the courts (for the most part) don't care who's donating to whose re-election campaign.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arkansas, labels, meat, plan-based foods

Federal Judge Says Boycotts Aren't Protected Speech

from the WTAF dept

A federal judge in Arkansas has delivered a truly WTF First Amendment decision related to a state's anti-Israel-boycott law. The law states that companies contracting with government entities cannot engage in boycotts of Israeli products or services. Those doing so are either forbidden from doing business with the state government or forced to sell their products/services at a substantial discount.

In this case, the Arkansas Times' steady business relationship with an Arkansas college has been disrupted by the Arkansas law seeking to punish businesses that engage in boycotts of Israel. Every company doing business with Arkansas government entities must sign a certification stating they are not boycotting Israel. The law has been in effect since 2017, but this year the Times refused to sign the required certification. This refusal cost the paper its advertising contract with the school, since the only other option under the boycott law was to sell its services at a mandated 20% discount.

The Times sued with the assistance of the ACLU, seeking to have this law found unconstitutional. So far, the ACLU has managed to get similar laws blocked/rewritten in two other states. The judge in this case, Brian S. Miller, even points to the ACLU's successful lawsuits, but still manages to come to the opposite -- and insane -- conclusion that participating in a boycott is not protected speech. From the order [PDF] denying the Arkansas Times' request for an injunction:

The Times is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claims because it has not demonstrated that a boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is protected by the First Amendment. This finding diverges from decisions recently reached by two other federal district courts. Jordahl, 336 F. Supp. 3d at 1016; Koontz v. Watson, 283 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1021–22 (D. Kan. 2018).

In Jordahl, the court had this to say about Arizona's boycott law:

A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott…

[...]

The type of collective action targeted by the [law] specifically implicates the rights of assembly and association that Americans and Arizonans use ‘to bring about political, social, and economic change."

In Koontz, the federal court similarly found Kansas' anti-boycott law unconstitutional:

[T]he Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.

None of this matters in this court, where somehow it's possible to separate the act of boycotting from the speech it represents in order to allow the government to punish companies for expressive acts.

First, a boycott is not purely speech because, after putting aside any accompanying explanatory speech, a refusal to deal, or particular commercial purchasing decisions, do not communicate ideas through words or other expressive media.

[...]

Second, such conduct is not “inherently expressive.”

[...]

It is highly unlikely that, absent any explanatory speech, an external observer would ever notice that a contractor is engaging in a primary or secondary boycott of Israel. Very few people readily know which types of goods are Israeli, and even fewer are able to keep track of which businesses sell to Israel. Still fewer, if any, would be able to point to the fact that the absence of certain goods from a contractor’s office mean that the contractor is engaged in a boycott of Israel. See id.; c.f. FAIR, 547 U.S. at 66. Instead, an observer would simply believe that the types of products located at the contractor’s office reflect its commercial, as opposed to its political, preferences. In most, if not all cases, a contractor would have to explain to an observer that it is engaging in a boycott for the observer to have any idea that a boycott is taking place.

That's the legal standard for expressive activity in Arkansas according to Judge Miller: if observers can't tell what's happening without additional speech, the government is free to punish companies for choosing not to do business with Israel. In almost every case, though, speech will accompany this act, which means the state government can punish companies' protected speech by punishing them for the act this court believes can be separated from it.

All a decision like this does is encourage Arkansas companies to lie on their certifications. If the government wants to punish companies for lying, it will have to compel some actually protected speech from them: statements about their boycott of Israel. If no observer (and that apparently includes government entities engaging in business with private contractors) can tell a boycott is or isn't underway, then the boycott can continue with the government none the wiser -- so long as no one makes any statements about it. The government has kind of painted itself into a corner, using paint supplied by an Arkansas judge who should have done much better parsing both the law and the First Amendment.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arkansas, bds, boycotts, free speech, israel

Arkansas Politician Introduces Bill To Make It Illegal For Social Media Companies To Block Content He Likes

from the bonus-round-of-bad-ideas-immediately-follows dept

Arkansas state rep Johnny Rye is in galaxy mind mode. He's introduced a bill that aims to stop "censorship" by social media platforms by allowing the government to compel speech. I'm sure the irony is lost on Rye. But it's probably not the only thing sailing over Rep. Rye's head. (h/t Sarah McLaughlin)

What Rye is trying to stop is social media companies moderating their own platforms. He appears to feel conservatives are being "censored" by Facebook, Twitter, etc. and thinks rolling over the First Amendment and Section 230 immunity is going to cure this perceived ill.

Holy hell, the bill [PDF] is a mess. I'm going to have to quote from it at length because it's the only way any discussion of it can achieve semi-coherence. Here's the gist of it, from David Ramsey of the Arkansas Times:

The bill would allow plaintiffs to seek damages of a minimum of $75,000 "per purposeful deletion or censoring of the social media website user's speech" plus actual damages and punitive damages if aggravating factors are present. Only social media companies with at least 75 million subscribers would be subject to Rye's bill.

Slightly more specifically, the "Stop Social Media Censorship Act" says this:

The owner or operator of a social media website who resides in this state is subject to a private right of action by a social media website user if the social media website purposely:

(i) Deletes or censors a social media website user's religious or political speech; or

(ii) Uses an algorithm to suppress religious or political speech.

How does Rep. Rye get around the fact that private companies can moderate content on their platforms however they'd like without it being "censorship?" Easy. He just unilaterally declares Facebook, et al to be "public utilities." Problem solved.

A social media website is considered a public utility under this section.

Pretty cool. I didn't know writing worked that way. Let me see if I've got the hang of this…

Rep. Rye is considered a nuisance and threat to public safety under this section.

Now I just need to send the cops around to restore public safety by taking Rep. Rye out of the rotation.

The good news is social media companies can limit the monetary damages by restoring/uncensoring posts a user complains about. (Presumably using an in-court complaint form, rather than the site's online forms.) There's your compelled speech, which is just another misshapen cherry on the top of shit sundae.

Here's Rye's tiny concession to the First Amendment, which isn't really a concession, nor even compliant with the First Amendment. This must be Rye's idea of "narrow crafting."

A social media website is immune from liability under this section if it deletes or censors a social media website user's speech or uses an algorithm to disfavor or censure speech that calls for immediate acts of violence, is obscene, or pornographic in nature.

Rye is generously allowing platforms to engage in the sort of moderation they already engage in. They're free to moderate certain kinds of speech, just not the kind of speech Rye likes. And if users aren't willing to sue over "censorship" themselves, the state is empowered to draw inferences on their behalf.

The Attorney General may bring a civil cause of action under this section on behalf of social media website users who reside in this state whose religious speech or political speech has been censored by a social media website.

If you're wondering why Rep. Rye has crafted this monument to his own stupidity, David Ramsey has your answer:

Rye's bill comes in the same week that Sen. Jason Rapert vociferously complained about being temporarily barred from sending tweets by Twitter. A tweet that Rapert sent out regarding Muslims was found by the company to violate its "hateful conduct policy." The company imposed a timeout that lasted at least 12 hours, according to a printout of Twitter's communication that Rapert held up to the camera in a Facebook Live post. The offending tweet has apparently been removed.

Here are a couple other things Rye is pitching this legislative session:

Make it a felony to relocate, alter, remove, rename, rededicate or otherwise disturb historical monuments on public property without the permission of the Arkansas History Commission.

Create a special license plate for members of the Arkansas Masonic Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons.

So, a "no tearing down Confederate war hero statues" bill, and a special license plate for himself. From Rye's bio:

He is active in the Lions Club and Masonic Lodge.

This wave of proposed legislation follows last year's failed attempt to repeal the state's recognition of same-sex marriages.

And he's looking for even more internet regulation, this time under the guise of fighting sex trafficking. This bill [PDF] would ban anyone from selling any devices that access the internet without pre-installed "blocking software." This is at least as batshit as his social media censorship proposal.

A distributor shall not in this state manufacture, sell, offer for sale, lease, or distribute a product that makes content accessible on the internet unless the product:

(A) Contains active and properly operating blocking software that renders obscene material inaccessible;

(B) Prohibits access to content that is prohibited under this chapter;

(C) Prohibits access to revenge pornography;

(D) Prohibits access to a website that facilitates prostitution; and

(E) Prohibits access to a website that facilitates human trafficking.

The list of "prohibited content" includes revenge porn, "specified anatomical areas," and obscene material. The reseller or manufacturer violating this law is subject to a $500 fine… wait for it:

...for each prohibited image, video or audio depiction, or website found to be accessible at the time of the offense.

On top of adding new software to their devices, resellers and manufacturers will also foot the bill for a 24/7 complaint hotline to report overblocking/underblocking.

The good news (I guess) is that Arkansans still have the option to see turgid penises and whatnot. All they have to do is pay $20 and state, in writing, that they're above the age of 18 and definitely want to see as many "specified anatomical areas" as possible. Proof of age must also be submitted. The bill does not specify whether this will restore access to revenge porn or trafficked humans, but one would assume it's an all-inclusive fee.

Sex trafficking will somehow be prevented by the state AG dumping collected fines into a strongbox marked "for the children," because nothing's too on the nose for Johnny Rye:

Fines levied by a court under subdivision (a)(2)(A) of this section shall be deposited into the Safe Harbor Fund for Sexually Exploited Children.

Whew. What a time to be alive. And in Arkansas. And knowing you still have two more years before you can unceremoniously return Johnny Rye to the private sector he so very badly wants to harm.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arkansas, censorship, free speech, johnny rye, section 230