The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Former Blade Staffers Launch 'DC Agenda'
D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Report: CCDC Split From UDC Is "Critical To Success"
The story of Pepin Tuma, the local lawyer who back in July was arrested by a D.C. police officer after singing the words "I hate the police" while walking down U Street, has made its way in front of the D.C. Council, leading to serious talk about revising the District's disorderly conduct laws. The Legal Times blog and Huffington Post both covered Friday's hearing, during which Tuma testified about his experience while flanked by pro bono counsel from his former firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. And it looks like Tuma's message got through to Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary chairman Phil Mendelson. From the BLT: 'During the hearing, Mendelson made it clear he thought it was time for changes in the law, pointing out that parts of it were more than a century old, and that it had been criticized by Gerald Ford’s President’s Commission On Crime in the District of Columbia.' Unsurprisingly, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier and D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles have expressed their opposition to changing the law, which currently allows officers latitude in making arrests for what they deem to be disorderly conduct. The officer in this case, however, is being investigated by both the police department's Internal Affairs Bureau and the independent Office of Police Complaints, according to Huffington Post.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSSSLEG_hRk&feature=player_embedded
[more]
I don't think it is accurate to say he was taunting the police, at least not based on previous reports of the story.
Except that how is that, in any reasonable person's mind, a taunt? It's a statement, not an invitation for fisticuffs behind the school.
Honestly, I think that police officers do need some latitude in terms of evaluating disorderly conduct. I would be interested in knowing if there are stricter standards in other cities, but it seems to me that this is something that is particularly hard to define no matter what.
If you give too much latitude, common sense goes out the window, as it apparently did here. And then everyone gets lawyered up. And then we end up paying for it.
I note, with no little degree of amusement, that Pep is intentionally vague on whether he's going to sue the city. The Council should read between the lines and see this as the threat that it really is. Fix this and make it go away lest my tax dollars pay for what will probably be a much larger out-of-court settlement if he does sue.
i think we just need officers who can practice discretion and not exercise their power just because they feel like it. it's like when they put on their lights just to get through a traffic signal, not because they're on the way to a call, but because they're bored.
Agreed. If they take away disorderly conduct, there will just be more arrests made on other totally subjective charges like drunk in public.
Does Mendelson ever take up on the side of the police? For the head of public safety he sure seems like he hates the police. If they guy stated "I hate the police" then its clearly freedom of speech. But if he was singing "I hate the police" loudly then he is really trying to disrupt what the police are doing and should be arrested. I know its popular to complain about cops and talk about how they are the problem but in this city we need to support our officers and change laws that really need to be changed instead of grandstanding.
Well of course! Everyone knows free speech does not apply to words that are sung loudly, but only to those that are spoken.
Wait, what?
+1. I see no difference between a statement and singing.
There is so much caselaw backing Tuma up that it is absurd that MPD is trying to fight it. Courts have time and again forced states to be more specific in their definitions of 'disorderly conduct' and in most cases require demonstration that the perpetrator is aware their conduct is disorderly under those narrower definitions before making an arrest.
A police officer merely not liking what a private citizen says while walking down the street has never been recognized by the courts as grounds for arrest let alone conviction.
From a strictly legal perspective, the police were absolutely wrong in this instance.
The reason being that 'I hate the police' is protected political speech. This is in fact the kind of speech that is the most protected by the Constitution. Since the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land (especially in a Federal jurisdiction like D.C.,) this 'disorderly conduct' arrest was wholly unconstitutional. It seems that the DCPD likes to argue against the U.S. Constitution just for the heck of it.
'I hate the police' expresses an opinion. It does not incite disorder in any way. If I were to go on the street and say "I think most cops are incompetent fools," that also would be protected speech because I would be commenting on a political issue. Furthermore, if the statement was not directed at any officer in general I don't think there is any way that could be construed as disorderly conduct.
If I were to go on the street and say 'The United States is a police state,' it would absolutely be protected by the First Amendment. Since the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, it would also happen to be true. Cases have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court over very similar matters, and the court has held the speech in question to be protected.
The charges against the attorney in this case are complete and total B.S., and just another example of police overstepping the bounds of their authority. Many might agree with the statement that the police (D.C. police in particular) are corrupt and power-hungry, and on a regular basis violate the very laws they are sworn to uphold.
If Lanier thinks this is disorderly conduct, she needs to go, pronto. Can we please get a police chief who has read and understands the U.S. constitution? And would it be too much to ask that the police actually know the current laws that they are licensed to enforce?
Remember that we the people give police the authority that they cherish so dearly. If we the people wish to revoke that right, we may. Police need to remember that they work for the public, serve the public, and are paid out of public funds.
Remember folks, you can't have a police state without lots of (corrupt/incompetent) police. Stand up for your rights or lose them!
It's situational. Saying it in the midst of a protest, riot, or other confrontational situation would be a bad idea. Saying it while walking with friends to a bar on an average Sunday night is douchy, but not dangerous (to general public safety).
See: Yelling fire in a crowded theater.
I've always wondered what you're supposed to yell when there's a fire in a crowded theater.
"Don't go in there, baby!"
I thought it was don't yell movie in a crowded firehouse.