Contempt of cop

Last updated

"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. [1] [2] [3] [4] 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 [5] as a reaction to perceived disrespectful behavior [6] rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose. [7]

Contents

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. [8] 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, [9] or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer). [7] Contempt of cop situations may be exacerbated if other officers witness the allegedly contemptuous behavior. [10]

Charges such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer may be cited as official reasons in a contempt of cop arrest. [7] 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. [11] [12]

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, [13] [14] [15] though some courts have disagreed on what constitutes protected speech in this regard. [16] [17]

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, [18] especially in relation to law enforcement officers. [19]

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." [20]

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. [21] [22] 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.[ citation needed ]

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. [23] 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. [24]

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." [11] 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. [8]

Terminology

Contempt of cop has been in use since the 1960s. [5] [25] 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". [26] 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." [27]

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. [28]

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. 1 2 Lawrence, 48.
  6. ↑ Walker, 52.
  7. 1 2 3 Collins, 51
  8. 1 2 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[s] 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. 1 2 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 [Jon] 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: "[The officer] 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

Related Research Articles

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn and a person guilty of this is a contemnor or contemner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of vague laws that allow police to demand that "loiterers" and "wanderers" provide "credible and reliable" identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul G. Cassell</span> American judge (born 1959)

Paul George Cassell is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, who is currently the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in, and proponent of, victims' rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy</span> 2009 event, Massachusetts, U.S.

On July 16, 2009, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his Cambridge, Massachusetts, home by local police officer Sgt. James Crowley, who was responding to a 911 caller's report of men breaking and entering the residence. The arrest initiated a series of events that unfolded under the spotlight of the international news media.

Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court overturned the disorderly conduct charges against Dick Gregory and others for peaceful demonstrations in Chicago.

<i>Glik v. Cunniffe</i> 2011 court case regarding private citizens action

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The case arose when Simon Glik filmed Boston, Massachusetts, police officers from the bicycle unit making an arrest in a public park. When the officers observed that Glik was recording the arrest, they arrested him and Glik was subsequently charged with wiretapping, disturbing the peace, and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. Glik then sued the City of Boston and the arresting officers, claiming that they violated his constitutional rights.

Photography Is Not a Crime was an organization and news website that focused on rights of civilians who photograph and film police and other government organizations in the United States. It was founded in 2007 following the arrest of its creator, Carlos Miller, a veteran news reporter and photojournalist, and incorporated in June 2014 as PINAC Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation. In December 2022 Carlos Miller declared the site dead.

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that a cheek swab of an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment audit</span> Largely American social movement

First Amendment audits are a largely American social movement that usually involves photographing or filming from a public space. It is often categorized by its practitioners, known as auditors, as activism and citizen journalism that tests constitutional rights, in particular the right to photograph and video record in a public space. Auditors have tended to film or photograph government buildings, equipment, and access control points, as well as any personnel present.

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the mere existence of probable cause for an arrest did not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but deferred consideration of the broader question of when it might. The case concerned a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit filed against Riviera Beach by Fane Lozman, who had been arrested while criticizing local politicians during the public comments section of a City Council meeting. The city argued that under Hartman v. Moore he could not sue for retaliation, as they had probable cause to arrest him for the offense of disturbing a lawful assembly. Lozman conceded that they had probable cause, but argued that Hartman, a case about retaliatory prosecutions, did not extend to retaliatory arrests, and that instead Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle allowed his suit.

Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with warrantless arrests and the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled that even if an officer wrongly arrests a suspect for one crime, the arrest may still be "reasonable" if there is objectively probable cause to believe that the suspect is involved in a different crime.

McKesson v. Doe, 592 U.S. 1 (2020), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that temporarily halted a lawsuit by a police officer against an activist associated with the Black Lives Matter movement and instructed the lower federal court to seek clarification of state law from the Louisiana Supreme Court. At issue was whether the activist, DeRay Mckesson, could be liable under Louisiana tort law for injuries caused by other people at a protest. Mckesson had argued that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of assembly should block the lawsuit entirely. The Court's decision to instead redirect the tort law issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court means that the constitutional question was delayed or avoided.

Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with non-verbal free speech and its protections under the First Amendment. The Court, in a per curiam decision, ruled that a Washington state law that banned the display of the American flag adorned with additional decorations was unconstitutional as it violated protected speech. The case established the Spence test that has been used by the judicial system to determine when non-verbal speech may be sufficiently expressive for First Amendment protections.

Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether a plaintiff suing for malicious prosecution must show that they were affirmatively exonerated of committing the alleged crime. The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that no such requirement existed and that a plaintiff suing for malicious prosecution in the context of a Fourth Amendment "need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction." Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Media coverage of the decision portrayed the Court's ruling as a victory for civil rights lawsuits.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.