Home News Washington Supreme Court rules verbally abusing police officers is protected speech

Washington Supreme Court rules verbally abusing police officers is protected speech

532
0
SHARE
Members of the State of Washington Supreme Court.  Credit: Washington Courts
Members of the State of Washington Supreme Court. Credit: Washington Courts


By Brett Gillin

It seems that every interaction between a police officer and a suspect is caught on tape these days. Thousands of would-be video journalists throughout the country are whipping out their cell phones and hitting record whenever someone is being arrested, and the legality of these actions has been upheld several times in court cases. But something more alarming is happening with many of these interactions.

Oftentimes, the people recording these interactions aren’t being merely impartial observers to a situation, but inserting themselves into the situation itself, whether by acting like amateur lawyers in reciting the rights of the citizens or by verbally assaulting the officers. Thanks to a recent ruling by the Washington Supreme Court, these verbal shots taken at officers are perfectly legal.

On Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a juvenile, known in court records as simply “E.J.J.”, who screamed obscenities at officers and refused to obey their orders while they arrested an intoxicated woman from his house. The officers arrested E.J.J. on charges of obstruction, but the court has ruled that the arrest violated E.J.J.’s First Amendment rights.

“While E.J.J’s words may have been disrespectful, discourteous and annoying, they are nonetheless constitutionally protected,” wrote Associate Chief Justice Charles Johnson wrote in the 42 page opinion. He continued, explaining that citizens have the right to “criticize how the police are handling a situation, [and] they cannot be concerned about risking a criminal conviction for obstruction.”

According to Oregon Live, the original incident began when police responded to a call regarding an out-of-control juvenile woman who was intoxicated. When they arrested her and began leading her from the house, E.J.J. claims he saw one of the officers take out a nightstick. This caused E.J.J. to stand in a doorway and yell at the officers, instructing them to put the nightstick away and not use it on the woman.

Police asked E.J.J. to get back into the house and close the door, but E.J.J. did not comply. Instead, he began hurling insults and profanity at the officers. According to the court’s written opinion, one of the officers then warned E.J.J that he could be arrested for obstruction if he did not comply with their requests. E.J.J. continued standing in the doorway and ignoring their request while calling the officers abusive names. The officers then arrested E.J.J. and charged him with obstructing a law enforcement officer.

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen agreed with the ruling, but also interjected her opinion that the conviction should have been dismissed on different grounds. Madsen argued that race may have played a role in the decision to arrest E.J.J., claiming that obstruction charges are “used disproportionately to arrest people of color.”

As for the failure to comply with the officer’s instructions to close the door, the court wrote “E.J.J. had every right to stand on his own property, provided he did not physically interfere with police.” Since E.J.J. did not physically stand in the way of the officers, his refusal to leave the scene and close the door at the officer’s request did not, according to the judgement, constitute obstruction. Instead, the court ruled that his abusive language and refusal to comply simply “caused a minor delay [and] is of no import.”

Madsen also suggested, according to KOMOnews.com, that the court should add a law to the books requiring obstruction charges to be dropped if an officer’s conduct escalates the situation. “It is apparent that in this case the arresting officer unnecessarily escalated the situation when E.J.J refused to close the door. At that point it appears that E.J.J and the officer were involved in a contest of wills, and the officer won because he had the power of arrest.”

The ruling has to make one wonder if Madsen’s suggestion could lead to a slippery slope of suspects not complying with officers’ demands, then skating on charges due to a newly-created loophole. One thing is for certain though: Police officers are now legally required to put up with abusive, profanity-laced language being hurled at them as they attempt to perform their jobs.

If you have any problems viewing this article, please report it here.

1 COMMENT

  1. Here we go let’s give every one more rights then officers. Then law abiding citizens.. a person yelling and screaming at the cops for a resting a person escalates the situation and should be forced to leave. If not they go to jail as well. Let cops do their jobs.

  2. I would not have such a problem with this decision if the same standard was applied in their courtrooms. Can a person stand in their courtroom and belittle the judges and carry on as free speech? Or would they be held in contempt and removed?

  3. Fuck the police, fuck you and your attempts to conflate free speech with abuse or obstruction or the failure to follow lawful commands. Police use their free speech rights all the time, most often to convince ordinary people to give up their rights – sometimes to berate the weak willed into confession. Isn’t that the method used by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition? Well, at least police (outside of Chicago) aren’t deploying the same devices of physical torture from that era today.

    In conclusion, fuck every police officer that doesn’t respect the first amendment right today fuck the police. Don’t like it? This is America Jack, love it or fucking leave it.

  4. So, it is alarming that citizens can legally record police arrests, and it is even “more alarming” that those same citizens can “recit[e] the rights of the citizens” or make other comments to police? Do you really think those actions are not protected by the first amendment? Insanity. And then you have the gall to wonder why the public is increasingly critical of law enforcement. For the record, the “juvenile woman” – that means “girl” by the way, in ordinary English – was E.J.J.’s sister. So he was yelling at the officers not to beat his sister with a nightstick. Yeah, how dare he! And he was not standing “in the doorway” he was standing inside his own house. All of these facts are in the case, but I guess it doesn’t sound quite as bad the way you spin it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here