SD man was OK to curse at cops, state Supremes rule

Story is from the First Amendment Center, via Fark.

Marcus J. Suhn yelled a stream of profanities beginning with "F*cking cop" on the sidewalk at 2 a.m. after the bars closed on Sept. 2, 2007, as two police officers were riding down the street in their patrol car. One officer heard Suhn, got out of his patrol car, arrested him and charged him with disorderly conduct.

A lower court said the arrest was OK because Suhn's words were a form of "fighting words." The South Dakota Supremes disagreed:

According to Meierhenry, Suhn’s profanity about the police did not “tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” as the other people standing on Main Street did not react with any type of violence.

“The crowd merely responded with facial expressions of disbelief,” he wrote. “Just because someone may have been offended, annoyed, or even angered by Suhn’s words does not make them fighting words.”

Comments

[JT]

The balance between free speech and abuse of law enforcement is often gray. However, no matter how sensitive police officers feel, the general public should be allowed to voice their opinion without being harassed by cops.

[Big Dog]

The problem is how many people would go this far to prove a point? Its to expensive to go through all the court proceedings over a minor fine.

[Shifty]

This has been case law for years. Law enforcement is suppossed to have thicker skin so profanities can be directed at police as free speech.

[Drew]

Don't worry Big Dog. There are plenty of media-whoring attorneys who would take this case pro bono under the ruse of fighting the mean, ol' oppressive government in the name of fundamental rights.
Either way, the Court is right, no matter how much common sense dictates that this idiot needs his skull cracked open on general stupidity grounds.

[FEH]

You're missing the point, Big Dog. This is not a question of the amount of the fine or the severity of the punishment; it's a Constitutional matter. The First Amendment affords us the right to free speech. This obviously doesn't include ALL speech, as the famous example of falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater demonstrates, but it does protect us against retribution from the government or its agents when we say something that upsets them. Clearly the police have dangerous and difficult jobs and put their lives on the line to protect us every day, but that doesn't give them the right to punish someone for simple criticism of them or their actions. It would be different if Suhn had said something like, "Let's get them," or some similar remark(s) that were clearly intended to provoke violence, but arresting and charging someone for simple oppositional speech is crossing the line. It sounds like Suhn was acting like an "idiot," as Drew suggests, but if simply being a loud-mouthed jerk was a crime, half the population would be in jail, including most of the folks who post comments on the KC Star discussion boards (present company excluded, of course).

[JB]

Half the population is in jail.

Wait a minute. Don't exclude me, I want in.

it's just payback for all the years this cop got his a55 whooped in high school......pigs

[Big Dog]

FEH, I didn't miss the point. What I was saying was that it is an expensive proposition for most people to fight. It cost the officer nothing to charge him and start the process but to fight you may have to hire an attorney, take off work and pay court fees in the process. I know its BS that the cops can do this simply because their offended or on a power trip bur everyone not in a position to fight every battle presented to you...

[Cops are Terrorists]

Of course there will always be some mindless sheep taking the side of the mentally inept pigs even when they abuse not only their 'power' but the First Amendment.
Drew, get off the cops nuts, the guy did nothing wrong but was only voicing his opinion and exercising his free speech. If anyone needs their skull cracked open for being ignorant it's not the guy in the story...

"...common sense dictates that this idiot needs his skull cracked open on general stupidity grounds."

Did you buckle your jack-boots too tight this morning?

[blarneology]

anyone starts yelling profanity's at another person cop or not needs their skull cracked. It's a complete lack of manners and anyone who thinks it's okay for some dipstick to act this way obviously was missing a few important lessons in their own upbringing.

Right, freedom of speech. Just yell fag at the rainbow parade and they will scream like a bunch of girls. Selective freedom of speech.

[Drew]

CrT, I own cop nuts, but thanks. You've got a pretty one-track mind, and that's quite clear. I'm merely advocating personal accountability and common sense. Obviously that's a seemingly insurmountable hurdle for you. I wish you well in that endeavor.
Blarney hit the nail on the head. Just because something is legal or permissible by a court's standards doesn't make it right or even smart. I would be more worried that, right or wrong, the cop would beat the tits off of me for running my mouth. And I wouldn't be pansy enough to pursue a claim against the cops for it--in other words, I would be accountable for the risk I assumed. You should look into that concept.
In this case, the cops arrested the guy for disorderly conduct. Because it took a trip to the State Supreme Court to decide the matter, it has presumably been enforced this way with no serious challenge until now. In other words, the actions for which they arrested the d-bag were likely deemed permissible until interpreted by the Court. So your contention that this was an abuse of police power is sorely misguided.
Sorry that took so long to respond to. I was busy on the cops' nuts.

[Unbelievable]

"I would be more worried that, right or wrong, the cop would beat the tits off of me for running my mouth."

- Something we shouldn't worry about when we deal with LEO's yet we do.

"Just because something is legal or permissible by a court's standards doesn't make it right or even smart."

-Hrm yeah it wasn't smart but to say it was right or wrong?... isn't that why we have a court system in place? Because your standards may not be mine, and mine are obviously not yours.

"And I wouldn't be pansy enough to pursue a claim against the cops for it-"

-Well be glad some people are pansy enough to step up to it, otherwise we all might still belong to the Commonwealth of England.

"So your contention that this was an abuse of police power is sorely misguided. "

-And the police NEVER abuse their power, nor do they distort the truth to cover their ass.

I will admit it wasn't exactly smart to provoke your highschool bully with a badge. What can you expect though, these guys risk their lives, have horrible personal relationships, and are seen with a general disdain by a bulk of the population. The reverse being that LEOs see the general public as lairs, thieves, and generally dis-honest. All for a pretty lousy paycheck, but they get to push people around so that's a plus.

[Drew]

While we're grandstanding with quotes:

"-Well be glad some people are pansy enough to step up to it, otherwise we all might still belong to the Commonwealth of England."

-Context, my boy, context. National independence has little to do with this idiot's poor choices. Again, see personal accountability.

"What can you expect though, these guys risk their lives, have horrible personal relationships, and are seen with a general disdain by a bulk of the population."

- This is what YOU can expect, because it's what you're predisposed to see. I also like your generalities about horrible personal relationships and the general population's views. Laughable, unless of course your "bulk of the population" is your core of government-hating, yet entitlement-grabbing hypocrites.

" "So your contention that this was an abuse of police power is sorely misguided. "

-And the police NEVER abuse their power, nor do they distort the truth to cover their ass."

- I'm glad you're comfortable answering an apple question with an orange response. Again, see comment about 'context'. And re-read my argument. It only makes sense if your English-to-English translator function is working. Pretty straight-line.
Nor did I make the contention that there are not any corrupt police officials. That would be absurd, but again, thanks for the unwarranted inference.

"I will admit it wasn't exactly smart to provoke your highschool bully with a badge."

- Minus the incendiary grandstanding, you've.....HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!! That's what I was getting at from the beginning. Thanks. And again, nice use of quotes. Compelling.

[blarneology]

Drew, are you trying to use common sense with these folks? Shame on you.

[Drew]

I know. When will I learn? Wah wah wahhhhh.

[Cops are Terrorists]

Drew, with your lack of compassion, thick-headedness and tendency towards violence (skull-cracking, etc.) should have known you were a pig. Kinda funny how the stereotype fits you to a tee.
Gee, and wonder why your profession loses more respect daily, way to keep the flame bright jerkoff.