A federal lawsuit was filed after a man was shot and killed by a Princeton (West Virginia) Police Officer inside his own house, following allegations from his neighbor that he had been riding his ATV through the neighbor’s yard. The officers were captured on bodycam footage engaging in an investigation within the curtilage of the man’s yard, and ultimately kicking in the door and shooting him. The officer who shot and killed the man claimed that the man had a baseball bat and refused to drop it. Conveniently however, he wasn’t wearing a bodycam, despite a department policy mandating that he do so. Some of the shooting was captured on another officer’s bodycam. It was recently released by the family’s lawyers.
The New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller recently published a scandalous report detailing private for-profit police training of 1000’s of police officers from around the country that, among other things: promoted the use of unconstitutional policing tactics for motor vehicle stops; glorified violence and an excessively militaristic or “warrior” approach to policing; spoke disparagingly of the internal affairs process; promoted an “us vs. them” approach; and espoused views and tactics that would undermine almost a decade of police reform efforts in New Jersey, including those aimed at de-escalating civilian-police encounters; and which included over 100 discriminatory and harassing remarks by speakers and instructors, with repeated references to speakers’ genitalia, lewd gestures, and demeaning quips about women and minorities.
Specifically, the report details a 2021 seminar held in Atlantic City, NJ, attended by approximately 1,000 police officers from across the country. Along with the report, the Acting Comptroller released video footage…
Here’s a media report about one of the instructors subsequently being charged with criminal violations for the video he bragged about, showing him shooting at a fleeing vehicle.
Here’s another media report about the founder of the training company retiring from police-work shortly after being sued for misconduct.
Here’s the list of states that sent police officers to the 2021 seminar featured in the report and video footage:
Video from Texas shows a guy being pulled over based on the allegation that his mud flaps were too short. But then, the officer opens the passenger side door on his own, while holding his pistol. He orders the driver out of his truck, making the new allegation that he smells marijuana. Then he frisks the man and searches his vehicle. During this entire ordeal, the driver is filming with his phone and questioning/accusing the officer. He actually did a really good job of completely destroying the alleged justification for the officer’s conduct.
This footage was sent to me by Jeff Gray, of Honor Your Oath Civil Rights Investigations. It comes to us from Daytona Beach, Florida. It shows multiple police officers harassing a guy on a bicycle who had flipped them “the bird.” As I’ve discussed numerous times, flipping “the bird” to police officers is protected First Amendment speech. In retaliation for that speech, they wrote this guy a ticket for what hopefully is the non-existent crime of riding a bicycle on a sidewalk.
This footage was submitted by Rhet. It involves the Manistee Police. Rhet is a DJ. Earlier in the evening, he played the song “Bad Boys” when this officer walked into the club. Well, later in the evening, the same officer pulls him over for what was seemingly not an actual traffic offense. One thing leads to another, and Rhet ends up arrested.
This happened in Texas. Brittany Trevino was driving down the road, when she saw a police officer whom she really disliked, so she gave him the middle finger. In obvious retaliation, the officer jumped in his police cruiser, sped down the road, and stopped her – allegedly for failure to signal a lane change. The only problem was, however, the officer was lying, as indicated by not one, but two, of his own cameras.
The protections of the First Amendment are not limited to spoken words, but rather include gestures and other expressive conduct, even if vulgar or offensive to some. For example, in Cohen v. California (1971), the Supreme Court held that an individual wearing a jacket bearing the words “F**k the Draft” in a courthouse corridor could not be prosecuted for disturbing the peace.
Consistent with this precedent, although “the gesture generally known as ‘giving the finger’ … is widely regarded as an offensive insult,” Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth. , (2d Cir. 1998), it is a gesture that is generally protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g. , Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard (6th Cir. 2019) (“Any reasonable [police] officer would know that a citizen who raises her middle finger engages in speech protected by the First Amendment.”); Garcia v. City of New Hope (8th Cir. 2021) (“[Plaintiff’s] raising his middle finger at [a police officer] is a rude and offensive gesture but nonetheless, under current precedent, is a constitutionally protected speech activity.”); Batyukova v. Doege(5th Cir. 2021) (same); accord Swartz v. Insogna (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that giving the middle finger could not support arrest for disorderly conduct); see generally Ira P. Robbins, Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law , 41 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1403, 1407–08, 1434 (2008) (observing that the middle finger can express a variety of emotions—such as anger, frustration, defiance, protest, excitement—or even “possess[ ] political or artistic value”).
Brittany Trevino’s original videos, including her update, are posted here.
I literally received hundreds of requests for my take on this outrageous bodycam footage that was originally uploaded by Lackluster, showing a lady being arrested in Kentucky, after she attempted to criticize a police officer for his poor driving skills. Well, you were right that I would be interested in this incident. Here’s my take on it.
Here are the relevant Kentucky statutes (I mistakenly used disorderly conduct in the first degree in the video, but the operative portions are identical):
Gregory Bombard was driving through his hometown of St. Albans, Vermont, enjoying a coffee and a cigarette. He committed no crime — not even a minor traffic violation. Twenty minutes later, he was sitting in a jail cell. Bombard’s alleged crime? Cursing at a cop and giving him the finger during a traffic stop — conduct that is squarely protected by the First Amendment. A federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed, and the dash cam footage has been released.
Cops in Wisconsin successfully nabbed some teenagers engaged in Door-Dashing. Originally a speeding stop, the officer quickly pivoted to a drug investigation, and basically went on a fishing expedition in an effort to find any reason at all to arrest them.
Edgar Orea brought me this footage. He’s a street preacher who was arrested in Bluefield, West Virginia for the content of his protected First Amendment speech. Edgar and his wife moved to Bluefield in order to serve the people of nearby McDowell County, West Virginia, which is the poorest county in the entire nation. But from the very beginning, they were harassed by the Bluefield Police Department, as you’ll see in the video. The police objected to the content of their message. In this particular incident, they actually arrested Mr. Orea and took him to jail based on the content of his anti-abortion sign, which showed an aborted fetus.
There was a similar case litigated in Kentucky: World Wide Street Preachers’ v. City of Owensboro, 342 F.Supp.2d 634 (W.D. Ky. 2004). In that case, another street preacher was arrested in a public park for showing a large sign with a similar photograph of an aborted fetus. The police claimed that this was causing public alarm and was likely to cause a confrontation. So they cited the individual, but otherwise didn’t arrest him or interfere with his other activities. The Court held:
A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949)….
In light of Supreme Court precedent, the Court cannot find that the Plaintiffs’ sign, no matter how gruesome or how objectionable it may be, constitutes “fighting words.” The Plaintiffs’ speech, whether one agrees with it or not, was certainly not of “slight social value.” Rather, their speech was a powerful, albeit graphic commentary on a societal debate that divides many Americans. Furthermore, their speech was not directed at any particular person. Their speech commented on a highly significant social issue and was calculated to challenge people, to unsettle them, and even to anger them, but not to insult them. Such social commentary is not only protected under Supreme Court precedent but also is highly valued in the marketplace of ideas in our free society.
Here, the Bluefield Police Department did much more than issue a citation, but rather placed Mr. Orea in handcuffs and carted him off for incarceration. Then they refused to return his signs, except for one. They charged him with two criminal misdemeanors: disorderly conduct and obstruction, two favorites of law enforcement officers for arresting people who have committed no crime. Fortunately, the charges were dismissed by the Court following a motion to dismiss based on the First Amendment.
