Misplaced Pages

Contempt of cop: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:45, 26 July 2009 editChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits tweak← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:54, 7 October 2024 edit undo162 etc. (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,369 editsmNo edit summary 
(385 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Law enforcement term}}
'''"Contempt of cop"''' is U.S. ] ]<ref>Baruch et al., .</ref><ref>Walker, .</ref> for perceived disrespect by citizens towards police officers.<ref>Steverson, .</ref> The term is most often used in connection with ] in reaction to such disrespect, i.e., ] or ]<ref name="Lawrence 48">Lawrence, .</ref> solely as a reaction to the disrespect,<ref>Walker, .</ref> rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.<ref name="Collins 51">Collins, .</ref> The phrase has become a ] that refers ] to the supposed crime and the arrests and other police reactions to protestations and defiance.<ref>See, e.g., ] reviewing '']'' in the : " was simply giving voice to one of the immutable beliefs of the New York City police officer, that "contempt-of-cop", as it is called, is the worst crime of all"; Coady et al. at : "Those who defy or challenge police authority are punished for failing the 'attitude test' and committing the worst crime of all—'contempt of cop'"; or ]'s novel ''No Man Standing'' (2003), at 18: "It was more of a power thing, daring you to commit the worst offense: Contempt of Cop."</ref>
"'''Contempt of cop'''" is ] ] in the United States for behavior by people toward ]s that the officers perceive as disrespectful or insufficiently deferential to their authority.<ref>Baruch et al., .</ref><ref>Walker, .</ref><ref>Steverson, .</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU4MGE4MDkwYzhiYjY4OTk2OWRlZjcyMWY0MjFkNmE= |title=Promoting Racial Paranoia |first=Heather |last=Mac Donald |work=National Review Online |access-date=2009-07-26 |date=2009-07-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090727010054/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU4MGE4MDkwYzhiYjY4OTk2OWRlZjcyMWY0MjFkNmE= |archive-date=2009-07-27 }}</ref> It is a play on the phrase '']'', and is not an actual offense. The phrase is associated with unlawful ] of individuals, often for expressing or exercising rights guaranteed to them by the ]. Contempt of cop is often discussed in connection to ] such as use of ] or even ]<ref name="Lawrence 48">Lawrence, .</ref> as a reaction to perceived disrespectful behavior<ref>Walker, .</ref> rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.<ref name="Collins 51">Collins, </ref>


Arrests for contempt of cop may stem from a type of "occupational arrogance" when a police officer thinks his or her authority cannot or should not be challenged or questioned.<ref name=NJ>{{cite web| url=http://www.aele.org/NJAG799.html |title=New Jersey Final Attorney General Report on racial profiling | first1=John J. Jr. |last1=Farmer | author-link=John Farmer, Jr.| first2= Paul H. | last2=Zoubek|work=State Police Review Team |date=1999-07-02 |access-date=2009-07-27}}</ref> From such officers' perspective, contempt of cop may involve perceived or actual challenges to their authority, including a lack of ] (such as disobeying instructions,<ref>Shapiro, .</ref> or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer).<ref name="Collins 51" /> Contempt of cop situations may be exacerbated if other officers witness the allegedly contemptuous behavior.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/26/obamas_henry_gates-gate_97623.html |title= Obama's Henry Gates-gate |first = Clarence |last=Page|author-link=Clarence Page|work= ]|date=2009-07-26 |access-date=2009-07-26|quote=Maybe so, but, according to Crowley, Gate was yelling at him in front of his fellow police officers. In long-standing police-civilian etiquette, that's 'contempt of cop.' You disrespect the police officer, the officer has ways of showing you that he has a longer billy club.}}</ref>
Officers react to perceived and actual challenges to their authority, including a lack of ], disobeying instructions,<ref>Shapiro, .</ref> flight from the police<ref>Walker, .</ref> or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer.<ref name="Collins 51" /> Offences such as the "trilogy" of ], ] and ] may be cited as official reasons for a "contempt of cop" arrest.<ref name="Collins 51" />


Charges such as ], ], and ]ing an officer may be cited as official reasons in a contempt of cop arrest.<ref name="Collins 51" /> ] or ] is also cited in arrests in some jurisdictions, particularly as a stand-alone charge without any other charges brought.<ref name=PI/><ref name=Wilham>{{cite news |url=http://www.policeone.com/police-products/duty-gear/restraints/articles/1760130-N-M-cops-cant-arrest-for-refusing-to-obey/ |title=N.M. cops can't arrest for 'refusing to obey' |work= PoliceOne.com|agency=]| first= T.J. | last=Wilham |access-date=2009-07-27 |date=2008-11-25}}</ref>
The term is derived from the slang term for police officer, "cop", and by analogy from "]", which unlike "contempt of cop" is an offence in many jurisdictions. It was already in use by the 1960s.<ref name="Lawrence 48" /><ref>Cashmore, .</ref> It has also been referred to as "flunking the attitude test" and as a form of "interactional discrimination" (i.e., ] against people more likely to "talk back" to the police, such as young black men in the U.S.).<ref>Coleman, .</ref>


==Legality==
In commenting on the ], ], who spent 17 years as a police officer in ] and a professor of criminal justice at ] specializing in police policy and practice, described "contempt of cop" to ''Time'' magazine as:<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912777,00.html |title=The Gates Case: When Disorderly Conduct is a Cop's Judgment Call | first = Bonnie | last = Rochman |format= |work= TIME| |date=2009-07-26| accessdate=2009-07-26}}</ref>
] is protected under the ], so non-threatening verbal abuse of a police officer is not in itself criminal behavior,<ref name=Time>
{{quotation|In contempt of court, you get loud and abusive in a courtroom, and it's against the law. With contempt of cop, you get loud and nasty and show scorn for a law enforcement officer, but a police officer can't go out and lock you up for disorderly conduct because you were disrespectful toward them.... You could tell them to go f--k themselves and that's fine.}}
{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912777,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090725232642/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912777,00.html |archive-date=July 25, 2009 |title=The Gates Case: When Disorderly Conduct is a Cop's Judgment Call | first = Bonnie | last = Rochman |magazine= ] |date=2009-07-26| access-date=2009-07-26|quote='In contempt of court, you get loud and abusive in a courtroom, and it's against the law,' says Shane, now a professor of criminal justice at John Jay who specializes in police policy and practice. 'With contempt of cop, you get loud and nasty and show scorn for a law enforcement officer, but a police officer can't go out and lock you up for disorderly conduct because you were disrespectful toward them.' The First Amendment allows you to say pretty much anything to the police. 'You could tell them to go f--k themselves,' says Shane, 'and that's fine.'}}</ref><ref name="Houston v. Hill">
Writing for the Court in '''', {{ussc|482|451|1987}}, ] said, "The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." —&nbsp;482 U.S. 451, at 463</ref><ref name="Duran v. Douglas">
In '''', 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Circuit, 1990) the Court held that giving a police officer the "finger" was protected speech. Writing for the Court, ] said, "But disgraceful as Duran's behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime."</ref> though some courts have disagreed on what constitutes protected speech in this regard.<ref name="Hudson">Some lower courts have considered certain speech to constitute ]. See, e.g., {{cite web |url=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=fighting_words |author=David L. Hudson Jr |title=Fighting words |publisher=First Amendment Center |location=Nashville, TN |access-date=2009-07-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060709035902/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=fighting_words |archive-date=2006-07-09 }}.</ref><ref>In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court, without ruling on the merits, allowed to stand a ] ruling that unprovoked profane utterances to a county deputy constituted fighting words. See: {{cite web |url=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13272 |title=Supreme Court won't hear dispute over cursing at cops |publisher=First Amendment Center |access-date=2009-07-27 |quote=Today the justices declined without comment to review his appeal in Robinson v. Montana. Their refusal does not address the merits of the issue. By declining to hear Robinson's appeal, justices left undisturbed a Montana Supreme Court ruling that unprovoked utterances are not protected. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040620003924/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13272 |archive-date=2004-06-20 }}</ref>


==References== === Case law ===
The ] ruled in '']'' (1942) that ] that "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected speech, but later cases have interpreted this narrowly,<ref name="SF">{{cite web |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/08/08/MN191833.DTL |title=Swearing at police is criticism, not crime / Appeals court overturns 2 convictions |first=Bob |last=Egelko |work=]|date=2001-08-08|access-date=2009-07-27}}</ref> especially in relation to law enforcement officers.<ref name="U.S.A. v. Nolan L. Poocha">
*{{cite book|last=Baruch|first=Rhoda |coauthors=Henderson Grotberg, Edith; Stutman, Suzanne|title=Creative Anger: Putting That Powerful Emotion to Good Use|publisher=Praeger |date=2007|isbn=0275998746}}
In '''', 259 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001), Judge ] wrote for the 2-1 majority that, "criticism of the police, profane or otherwise, is not a crime."</ref>
*{{cite book|last=Cashmore|first=Ellis |title=Out of Order?: Policing Black People|date=1991|isbn=0415037263}}

*{{cite book|last=Coady|first=C. A. J.|coauthors=Coady, Tony; James, Steven|title=Violence and Police Culture|publisher=]|date=2000|isbn=0522847889}}
In '']'' (2019), the Supreme Court held that the existence of ] to make an arrest could generally defeat a ] claim. However, it made an exception "for circumstances where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so." The majority opinion held that a plaintiff may still prevail on a retaliatory arrest claim "when a plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14343575767344432456|title=Nieves v. Bartlett, Supreme Court 2019 - Google Scholar|website=scholar.google.com}}</ref>
*{{cite book|last=Coleman|first=Clive |coauthors=Norris, Clive |title=Introducing criminology|publisher=Willan|date=2000|isbn=1903240093}}

*{{cite book|last=Collins|first=Allyson |title=Shielded From Justice: Police Brutality And Accountability In The United States|publisher=]|date=1998|isbn=1564321835}}
Several federal court decisions have found that expressing contempt for police officers is protected speech under the First Amendment. In ''City of Houston v. Hill'' (1987), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment "protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." In ''Swartz v. Insogna'' (2013), the ] ruled that extending the middle finger at an officer is not grounds to stop or arrest an individual.<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 January 2013 |title=Court: Flipping Off Cops Is Constitutional |url=http://www.policemag.com/350736/court-flipping-off-cops-is-constitutional |website=www.policemag.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions. |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1619484.html |website=Findlaw}}</ref> However, individual state laws that do not directly pertain to police officers, such as statutes for disorderly conduct and curse and abuse, can be legally used in such an arrest.{{cn|date=July 2020}}
*{{cite book|last=Lawrence|first=Regina G.|title=The politics of force|publisher=]|date=2000|isbn=0520221923}}

*{{cite book|last=Shapiro|first=Steven R.|title=Human rights violations in the United States: A Report on U.S. Compliance With the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights|publisher=], ]|isbn=1-56432-122-3}}
In March 2019, the ] ruled in favor of a woman who filed suit against a police officer who increased the severity of a traffic ticket after she extended her middle finger at him upon receiving the original ticket.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Fortin |first=Jacey |date=March 18, 2019 |title=A Raised Middle Finger Is Protected Free Speech, Appeals Court Rules |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/us/middle-finger-protected-speech.html}}</ref> In June 2019, the ] ruled in favor of a man who filed suit against a police officer who arrested him for shouting a derogatory obscenity at him. In both cases, the courts ruled that the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights had been violated and rejected the officers' assertions of ].<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 June 2019 |title=Passing Motorist Arrested for Yelling 'F*** You' at State Trooper Vindicated in Federal Court |url=https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/passing-motorist-arrested-for-yelling-f-you-at-state-trooper-vindicated-in-federal-court/ |website=lawandcrime.com}}</ref>
*{{cite book|last=Steverson|first=Leonard A.|title=Policing in America: A Reference Handboo|publisher=]|date=2007|isbn=1598840436}}

*{{cite book|last=Walker|first=Samuel |title=The new world of police accountability|publisher=Sage|date=2005|isbn=1412909449}}
==Racial aspects<!--linked from ]-->==
The '']'' conducted a study in 2008 that found that in the city of ], "African-Americans were arrested for the sole crime of ] eight times as often as whites when population is taken into account."<ref name=PI>{{cite news |url=http://www.seattlepi.com/local/353020_obstructmain28.asp |title=Blacks are arrested on 'contempt of cop' charge at higher rate |first1=Eric |last1=Nalder |first2=Lewis |last2=Kamb |first3=Daniel |last3=Lathrop|work=] |date=2008-02-28|access-date=2009-07-26|quote=The P-I treated an obstructing arrest as "stand-alone" if that was the only charge or if all other charges were for closely related offenses, such as resisting arrest. The number of black men who faced stand-alone obstructing charges during the six-year period reviewed is equal to nearly 2 percent of Seattle's black male population.}}</ref> In 2009 the ] also found a significant number of contempt of cop cases while investigating ] by the ], and concluded that "improper attitude and demeanor" of officers toward the public was a nationwide problem.<ref name=NJ/>

==Terminology==
''Contempt of cop'' has been in use since the 1960s.<ref name="Lawrence 48" /><ref>Cashmore, .</ref> The ] is slang for ''police officer''; the phrase is derived by analogy from '']'', which, unlike contempt of cop, is an offense in many jurisdictions (e.g., California Penal Code section 166, making contempt of court a misdemeanor). Similar to this is the phrase "disturbing the police", a play on "disturbing the peace". It has also been referred to as "flunking the attitude test".<ref name="books.google.ch">Coleman, .</ref> In some areas it is called P.O.P. (for "Pissing Off the Police") when a suspect's demeanor influences officer's response to people. "Leniency might be afforded to persons who treat officers with respect, whereas the heavy hand of the law is extended to persons who are disrespectful, ill mannered or rude."<ref>{{cite book |last=Hess |first=Christine |title=Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice |publisher=Delmar Cengage Learning |year=2012 |page= |isbn=978-1-111-30908-4}}</ref>

In crime writing and works about police misconduct, it has become something of a ] to ] refer to contempt of cop as the worst possible crime.<ref>See, e.g., ] reviewing ''New York's Finest'' in the : " was simply giving voice to one of the immutable beliefs of the New York City police officer, that contempt of cop, as it is called, is the worst crime of all"; Coady et al. at : "Those who defy or challenge police authority are punished for failing the 'attitude test' and committing the worst crime of all—'contempt of cop'"; or ]'s novel ''No Man Standing'' (2003), at 18: "It was more of a power thing, daring you to commit the worst offense: Contempt of Cop."</ref>

==See also==
* ], a misdemeanor charge in some jurisdictions
* "]", derived from "]", a similar example of sarcastic allusion to police misconduct
* {{section link|Law enforcement in the United States|Styles of policing}}
* ], a police officer involved in a noted case
* '']'', US Supreme Court decision concerning retaliation for criticizing the post office

==References and notes==


==Footnotes==
{{reflist|2}} {{reflist|2}}


==Bibliography==
]
*{{cite book|last=Baruch|first=Rhoda |author2=Henderson Grotberg, Edith |author3=Stutman, Suzanne|title=Creative Anger: Putting That Powerful Emotion to Good Use|publisher=Praeger |year=2007|isbn=978-0-275-99874-5}}
*{{cite book|last=Cashmore|first=Ellis |title=Out of Order?: Policing Black People|year=1991|publisher=Routledge |isbn=0-415-03726-3}}
*{{cite book|last=Coady|first=C. A. J.|author2=Coady, Tony |author3=James, Steven |title=Violence and Police Culture|publisher=]|year=2000|isbn=0-522-84788-9}}
*{{cite book|last=Coleman|first=Clive|author2=Norris, Clive|title=Introducing criminology|publisher=Willan|year=2000|isbn=1-903240-09-3|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/introducingcrimi0000cole}}
*{{cite book|last=Collins|first=Allyson |title=Shielded From Justice: Police Brutality And Accountability In The United States|publisher=]|year=1998|isbn=1-56432-183-5}}
*{{cite book|last=Lawrence|first=Regina G.|title=The politics of force|publisher=]|year=2000|isbn=0-520-22192-3}}
*{{cite book|last=Shapiro|first=Steven R.|title=Human rights violations in the United States: A Report on U.S. Compliance With the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights|publisher=], ]|isbn=1-56432-122-3|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/humanrightsviola0000unse_v4b8|year=1993}}
*{{cite book|last=Steverson|first=Leonard A.|title=Policing in America: A Reference Handbook|publisher=]|year=2007|isbn=978-1-59884-043-8}}
*{{cite book|last=Walker|first=Samuel |title=The new world of police accountability|publisher=Sage|year=2005|isbn=1-4129-0944-9}}

== External links ==
* , by Patrik Jonsson
* by Christy E. Lopez (link goes to Internet Archive copy of , which no longer exists)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Contempt Of Cop}}
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 18:54, 7 October 2024

Law enforcement term

"Contempt of cop" is law enforcement jargon in the United States for behavior by people toward law enforcement officers that the officers perceive as disrespectful or insufficiently deferential to their authority. It is a play on the phrase contempt of court, and is not an actual offense. The phrase is associated with unlawful arbitrary arrest and detention of individuals, often for expressing or exercising rights guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution. Contempt of cop is often discussed in connection to police misconduct such as use of excessive force or even police brutality as a reaction to perceived disrespectful behavior rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Arrests for contempt of cop may stem from a type of "occupational arrogance" when a police officer thinks his or her authority cannot or should not be challenged or questioned. From such officers' perspective, contempt of cop may involve perceived or actual challenges to their authority, including a lack of deference (such as disobeying instructions, or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer). Contempt of cop situations may be exacerbated if other officers witness the allegedly contemptuous behavior.

Charges such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer may be cited as official reasons in a contempt of cop arrest. Obstruction of justice or failure to obey a police order is also cited in arrests in some jurisdictions, particularly as a stand-alone charge without any other charges brought.

Legality

Freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, so non-threatening verbal abuse of a police officer is not in itself criminal behavior, though some courts have disagreed on what constitutes protected speech in this regard.

Case law

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) that fighting words that "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected speech, but later cases have interpreted this narrowly, especially in relation to law enforcement officers.

In Nieves v. Bartlett (2019), the Supreme Court held that the existence of probable cause to make an arrest could generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim. However, it made an exception "for circumstances where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so." The majority opinion held that a plaintiff may still prevail on a retaliatory arrest claim "when a plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been."

Several federal court decisions have found that expressing contempt for police officers is protected speech under the First Amendment. In City of Houston v. Hill (1987), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment "protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." In Swartz v. Insogna (2013), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that extending the middle finger at an officer is not grounds to stop or arrest an individual. However, individual state laws that do not directly pertain to police officers, such as statutes for disorderly conduct and curse and abuse, can be legally used in such an arrest.

In March 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of a woman who filed suit against a police officer who increased the severity of a traffic ticket after she extended her middle finger at him upon receiving the original ticket. In June 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of a man who filed suit against a police officer who arrested him for shouting a derogatory obscenity at him. In both cases, the courts ruled that the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights had been violated and rejected the officers' assertions of qualified immunity.

Racial aspects

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer conducted a study in 2008 that found that in the city of Seattle, "African-Americans were arrested for the sole crime of obstructing eight times as often as whites when population is taken into account." In 2009 the New Jersey Attorney General also found a significant number of contempt of cop cases while investigating racial profiling by the New Jersey State Police, and concluded that "improper attitude and demeanor" of officers toward the public was a nationwide problem.

Terminology

Contempt of cop has been in use since the 1960s. The word cop is slang for police officer; the phrase is derived by analogy from contempt of court, which, unlike contempt of cop, is an offense in many jurisdictions (e.g., California Penal Code section 166, making contempt of court a misdemeanor). Similar to this is the phrase "disturbing the police", a play on "disturbing the peace". It has also been referred to as "flunking the attitude test". In some areas it is called P.O.P. (for "Pissing Off the Police") when a suspect's demeanor influences officer's response to people. "Leniency might be afforded to persons who treat officers with respect, whereas the heavy hand of the law is extended to persons who are disrespectful, ill mannered or rude."

In crime writing and works about police misconduct, it has become something of a cliché to sardonically refer to contempt of cop as the worst possible crime.

See also

References and notes

  1. Baruch et al., 140.
  2. Walker, 55.
  3. Steverson, 300.
  4. Mac Donald, Heather (2009-07-24). "Promoting Racial Paranoia". National Review Online. Archived from the original on 2009-07-27. Retrieved 2009-07-26.
  5. ^ Lawrence, 48.
  6. Walker, 52.
  7. ^ Collins, 51
  8. ^ Farmer, John J. Jr.; Zoubek, Paul H. (1999-07-02). "New Jersey Final Attorney General Report on racial profiling". State Police Review Team. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  9. Shapiro, 119.
  10. Page, Clarence (2009-07-26). "Obama's Henry Gates-gate". Real Clear Politics. Retrieved 2009-07-26. Maybe so, but, according to Crowley, Gate was yelling at him in front of his fellow police officers. In long-standing police-civilian etiquette, that's 'contempt of cop.' You disrespect the police officer, the officer has ways of showing you that he has a longer billy club.
  11. ^ Nalder, Eric; Kamb, Lewis; Lathrop, Daniel (2008-02-28). "Blacks are arrested on 'contempt of cop' charge at higher rate". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved 2009-07-26. The P-I treated an obstructing arrest as "stand-alone" if that was the only charge or if all other charges were for closely related offenses, such as resisting arrest. The number of black men who faced stand-alone obstructing charges during the six-year period reviewed is equal to nearly 2 percent of Seattle's black male population.
  12. Wilham, T.J. (2008-11-25). "N.M. cops can't arrest for 'refusing to obey'". PoliceOne.com. Albuquerque Journal. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  13. Rochman, Bonnie (2009-07-26). "The Gates Case: When Disorderly Conduct is a Cop's Judgment Call". Time. Archived from the original on July 25, 2009. Retrieved 2009-07-26. 'In contempt of court, you get loud and abusive in a courtroom, and it's against the law,' says Shane, now a professor of criminal justice at John Jay who specializes in police policy and practice. 'With contempt of cop, you get loud and nasty and show scorn for a law enforcement officer, but a police officer can't go out and lock you up for disorderly conduct because you were disrespectful toward them.' The First Amendment allows you to say pretty much anything to the police. 'You could tell them to go f--k themselves,' says Shane, 'and that's fine.'
  14. Writing for the Court in City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), Justice Brennan said, "The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." — 482 U.S. 451, at 463
  15. In Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Circuit, 1990) the Court held that giving a police officer the "finger" was protected speech. Writing for the Court, Judge Kozinski said, "But disgraceful as Duran's behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime."
  16. Some lower courts have considered certain speech to constitute fighting words. See, e.g., David L. Hudson Jr. "Fighting words". Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center. Archived from the original on 2006-07-09. Retrieved 2009-07-26..
  17. In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court, without ruling on the merits, allowed to stand a Montana Supreme Court ruling that unprovoked profane utterances to a county deputy constituted fighting words. See: "Supreme Court won't hear dispute over cursing at cops". First Amendment Center. Archived from the original on 2004-06-20. Retrieved 2009-07-27. Today the justices declined without comment to review his appeal in Robinson v. Montana. Their refusal does not address the merits of the issue. By declining to hear Robinson's appeal, justices left undisturbed a Montana Supreme Court ruling that unprovoked utterances are not protected.
  18. Egelko, Bob (2001-08-08). "Swearing at police is criticism, not crime / Appeals court overturns 2 convictions". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
  19. In United States v. Poocha, 259 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001), Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the 2-1 majority that, "criticism of the police, profane or otherwise, is not a crime."
  20. "Nieves v. Bartlett, Supreme Court 2019 - Google Scholar". scholar.google.com.
  21. "Court: Flipping Off Cops Is Constitutional". www.policemag.com. 3 January 2013.
  22. "FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions". Findlaw.
  23. Fortin, Jacey (March 18, 2019). "A Raised Middle Finger Is Protected Free Speech, Appeals Court Rules". The New York Times.
  24. "Passing Motorist Arrested for Yelling 'F*** You' at State Trooper Vindicated in Federal Court". lawandcrime.com. 3 June 2019.
  25. Cashmore, 180.
  26. Coleman, 136.
  27. Hess, Christine (2012). Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Delmar Cengage Learning. p. 281. ISBN 978-1-111-30908-4.
  28. See, e.g., Jeffrey Goldberg reviewing New York's Finest in the September 17, 2000 The New York Times: " was simply giving voice to one of the immutable beliefs of the New York City police officer, that contempt of cop, as it is called, is the worst crime of all"; Coady et al. at 94: "Those who defy or challenge police authority are punished for failing the 'attitude test' and committing the worst crime of all—'contempt of cop'"; or Barbara Seranella's novel No Man Standing (2003), at 18: "It was more of a power thing, daring you to commit the worst offense: Contempt of Cop."

Bibliography

External links

Categories: