The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for Police to Arrest You for Filming Them

The First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for government officials to retaliate against you because they dislike your speech. At the same time, federal law gives you the right to sue state officials for compensation if they violate constitutional rights such as your right to free speech. But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court invented a rule that will often allow police officers to arrest people in retaliation for disfavored speech without liability.

By enabling police officers to target viewpoints they dislike with near impunity, the decision could be catastrophic for protesters and the press. The justices, meanwhile, didn’t even try to ground their decision in the text or history of the statute they were interpreting. Instead, the court was surprisingly frank about its rationale: The justices simply don’t want police officers to have to defend themselves in court against these types of allegations.

In Nieves v. Bartlett, a divided court ruled that individuals can’t sue police officers for retaliatory arrest if those officers had probable cause to arrest them for any crime, no matter how minor—and that’s true even if the real reason for the arrest was speech the officers didn’t like. In other words, if you are jaywalking in violation of a local ordinance, officers can arrest you without fear of liability even if they’re making the arrest only because you’re participating in a Black Lives Matter demonstration or wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap.

Because local laws are full of minor infractions, like “loitering,” that are frequently violated without incident, police will often have a pretext to arrest people engaged in speech the officers don’t like. By immunizing such abuse, Nieves may have devastating effects on demonstrators, press photographers, and anyone who wants to exercise their speech rights in public, like the right to film the police or verbally challenge officer misconduct. The power to arrest is a potent tool for suppressing speech because even if charges are later dropped, arrestees must undergo the ordeal—and dangers—of being booked and jailed, and they may have to disclose the arrest on future job and housing applications, among other ramifications.


 
  • Like
Reactions: McM

Alice Ayres

Rascal Slut
so, the decision was to make no decision. nothing has changed.

that was an extremely long write up to appear that law enforcement can arrest a citizen for merely making a statement they don't like... which is not true.

according to the article, officers must have probable cause to arrest. an element that currently exists and will continue to be necessary if an arrest is made.

clickbait title is clickbait.
 
so, the decision was to make no decision. nothing has changed.
no,it was made Tuesday.

On Tuesday, in Nieves v. Bartlett, a majority finally agreed on a standard for how probable cause affects a civil damages action for First Amendment retaliatory arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

 

Alice Ayres

Rascal Slut
no,it was made Tuesday.

On Tuesday, in Nieves v. Bartlett, a majority finally agreed on a standard for how probable cause affects a civil damages action for First Amendment retaliatory arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

yes, a decision was made--to let the statute 1983 stand as is:

"...civil damages action for First Amendment retaliatory arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: A plaintiff must show the absence of probable cause to arrest as an element of the claim and the presence of probable cause will defeat most claims, unless 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.

nothing has changed. with Nieves v. Bartlett only opinions were formulated from the magistrates leaving further decisions to lower courts.

as stated in NIEVES v. BARTLETT--Opinion of the Court:

"Because there was probable cause to arrest Bartlett, his retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered
"


seriously, the articles are just a string of words grouped together to create further discord between law enforcement and citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McM
Top