Judge Reminds Deputies They Can’t Arrest Someone Just Because They Don’t Like What Is Being Said
from the time-for-some-remedial-civics-lessons dept
It shouldn’t need to be said, but it bears repeating: the First Amendment definitely protects speech the listener doesn’t like.
This holds true even if the one doing the speaking is personally and professionally unlikable. There’s some backstory to this First Amendment retaliation suit, which explains why certain government employees might have wanted to arrest someone for talking. But nothing can explain actually following through with that fantasy.
This lawsuit (coming to us via FourthAmendment.com) begins in the Trumbull County (Ohio) Board of Commissioners. The Board has three elected members and must hold at least 50 public meetings every year. For most of the past three decades, the Board of Commissioners has been the home of registered Democrats. That changed in 2020, when Niki Frenchko was elected. She was a Republican and ran on a platform of (quoting directly here) “disrupting the entrenched practices of county leadership.”
Disrupt, she did. But her disruption was generally along the lines of annoyance rather than upending the Board’s “entrenched practices.” Here’s how things were going shortly before the Constitution got dragged into it. From the opinion [PDF]:
In her own words, Commissioner Frenchko has “been critical” of her colleagues and “embarrassed [them] by . . .exposing how they’ve been doing business . . . over their terms in a very inept and corrupted way.”
At meetings of the Trumbull County Commission, Commissioner Frenchko and her two colleagues often sparred. Even disagreements over policy often devolved into arguments during which the commissioners interrupted one another. Often, the meetings descended into personal insults. For example, at public meetings Commissioner Fuda referred to Commissioner Frenchko as “this lady.” During one public meeting, he held up photographs to Commissioner Frenchko of the trash can in the women’s restroom containing used tampons.
Lovely. And then the Sheriff’s Department became part of this uncivil discourse. Frenchko read a letter purporting to be from the mother of a local inmate claiming the jail had failed to provide adequate treatment for her son’s meningitis, resulting in partial deafness and other injuries. Sheriff Monroe responded with a letter of his own, criticizing Frenchko for reading the letter into the record without bothering to investigate whether the allegations were true.
Commissioner Fuda read this letter at the next meeting (without the Sheriff’s knowledge or permission). Well, he attempted to. Frenchko loudly objected to the Sheriff’s letter being read. And by “objected,” I mean “acted like an entitled child.”
Demanding that Commissioner Frenchko stop interrupting, Commissioner Fuda banged his gavel and raised his voice. Commissioner Frenchko continued to interrupt the clerk, mocking the clerk and bringing her to tears. As she continued interrupting, people in the audience urged Commissioner Frenchko to stop upsetting the clerk. At one point, Commissioner Frenchko left her seat to record the clerk from a better angle because Commissioner Fuda held up a piece of paper to obstruct her from recording the clerk.
This culminated in the other commissioners utilizing the two deputies on security duty to remove Frenchko for “disrupting” the meeting. They not only removed her (while she continued her criticism of Sheriff Monroe) but arrested her for “disturbing a lawful meeting.” She was processed and released. Charges were brought but were rejected by the court, which dismissed them without prejudice.
This arrest deals with the tip of the iceberg. If you’re so inclined, the opinion contains several pages detailing the sort of impropriety, infighting, and general childishness all commissioners engaged in, including one verbal altercation bearing this intriguing heading:
D.4. Salsa Dancing Incident
The defendants argued Frenchko’s removal and arrest were justified. The court disagrees. It was the form the disruption took that matters. This wasn’t just any disruption. This was the sort of thing that always retains the utmost in free speech protections.
Without question, the disruption that led to Commissioner Frenchko’s removal and arrest was her speech itself. And not just any speech. The speech of an elected official, delivered at a public meeting, addressing a matter of public concern. Speech that communicated a message disfavored by those in power. Speech highly critical of another elected official. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, this record does not permit disentangling Commissioner Frenchko’s speech from the disruption she caused. Here, they are one and the same.
Yes, it’s true some semblance of order is needed to engage in the business of government. But the lead commissioner had several options but chose to have the deputies attending the meeting arrest the commissioner he couldn’t get to shut up.
As the presiding officer, Commissioner Fuda had ample tools available, such as adjourning, taking a break, or even a formal reprimand—all short of arrest—to protect the government’s interests in running an orderly meeting. Indeed, “elected bodies in this country have long exercised the power to censure their members” unimpeded by the Constitution’s speech protections. Of all the tools available, Defendants used one that would chill any ordinary person or public official from continuing to question the Sheriff’s performance of his duties—an arrest.
It all circles back to the opening sentence of this order:
Here in America, we do not arrest our political opponents.
Well, we do. Obviously. But we shouldn’t (barring any actual criminal activity). The lawsuit will now move forward for consideration by a jury. No qualified immunity. No dismissal of the First and Fourth Amendment claims. And the defendants’ inability to secure a dismissal will absolutely lead to several more contentious board meetings. But no matter how much any of these commissioners may not like what’s being said, it should be clear — even without a final order in this case — that having them arrested is no longer an option.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, frank fuda, free speech, niki frenchko, ohio, paul monroe, trumbull county
Comments on “Judge Reminds Deputies They Can’t Arrest Someone Just Because They Don’t Like What Is Being Said”
Wow, it’s like a clown fiesta. Frenchko sounds like a real piece of shit but that doesn’t justify arresting her.
Re:
Ah, but they’d arrest me for assault if I spritzed her with water (like you do with a cat) when she started shouting.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
And you sound like a misogynistic hate-monger.
Re: Re:
She’s a Republican, so there’s a like a 90% chance she’s an asshole just on odds alone.
Re: Re: Re: Mamba.
And you’re a democrat, so a 90% chance you’re a pedophile.
Re: Re:
Not sure how you managed to dream up either misogyny or hatred from a simple and accurate description.
Is that you, Niki?
Re: Re:
I hope for your sake the intent of your comment was to tell everyone you’re illiterate, because that all your misuse of that word has achieved here.
Re: Re: Re:
Because AC spelled the word correctly while misusing it, that indicates a lack of reading comprehension, not illiteracy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Both sides? No way
This is the most pandering ‘both sides’ content I’ve ever seen on this site
Re:
That, friend, is the terrible nature of defending the first amendment: your clients are horrible people, but failing to defend their rights means forfeiting a defense of less reprehensible conduct. (ie “why are you picking on me, when you let Them get away with That?”)
Re: Re:
That’s the true test of the 1st Amendment. It’s easy to defend speech you agree with. It’s hard to defend speech you don’t. Could the Commissioner have been less of an asshole? Yes. She still has the right to free speech no matter how wrong her claims may be.
Re:
Pandering to both side? Wtf?!?
Highlighting that all the commissioners behaved childishly is “pandering” now?
Do you even know the meaning of the word “pandering”?
Re:
What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
Re:
Somehow you win dumbest comment, regular trolls excluded because they’re stuck on stupid full time.
Re:
The two sides here are those who value robust First Amendment protections, and those who want to gut the Constitution. This article certainly does not pander to the latter.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
She was removed from the meeting because she wouldn’t stop interrupting, and you think she was RIGHT? What the fuck?
Re:
Nowhere did Tim say she was right, he said it was wrong to have her arrested. I do hope you understand the difference.
Re:
“She was removed from the meeting because she wouldn’t stop interrupting, and you think she was RIGHT? What the fuck?”
Don’t taze me bro.
Cops across America routinely arrest people without any legal basis … as an easy punishment for people they don’t like — and especially those that the cops feel have ‘DISSED’ them
formal charges are never filed or quickly dropped — but the Arrestee suffers handcuffs, strip=-search, rough treatment, public humiliatiion, and a night or three in a dirty jail cell.
the cops smirk confideytll, knowing there’s very little chance of them suffering any personal consequences for false-arrest
Re:
You can beat the rap,
but you can’t beat the ride.
Re: Re: Beating the rap?
Some people only beat the wrap because they died in police custody due to officer negligence.
First admenment, really?
I wonder how the judge would react if something like this happened in his/her courtroom. Would it be allowed or would it be shut down with threats of penalty?
Re:
What the officer did was the equivalent of shooting and killing a person for alleged theft.
There are steps to take before using the most extreme punishment.
Re: Re:
It really wasn’t.
This seems a very long way from “the most extreme punishment”. Maybe take it down a notch…
turn off his mic
Turn off his mic and turn up the one that is her turn to speak.
You have the right to your say but in a public meeting you are supposed to allow the other side to speak. Shouting the other side down is not free speech imo.
I struggle to see how adjourning, taking a break, a formal reprimand or censure was going to result in an orderly meeting. It seems from the description that she was going to carry on no matter what they said or did short of physically removing her. Surely formal bodies like this have enforceable rules of decorum. Protesters get hauled out of meetings all the time. Arrest is probably a step too far but removal seems justified. It was her behavior that earned that, not her speech.
Re:
Yeah after a bit of consideration I’m inclined to agree. She wasn’t penalized because of what she was saying she was penalized because she refused to stop harassing the person recording what was being said and attempting to prevent it from being heard/recorded.
If anything to the extent that a first amendment violation might have occurred she was the one guilty of that by trying to drown out the speaker and prevent their words from being recorded.
Re: ok, but..
Youre right that being a loudmouth doesnt justify arrest. However refusal to leave is trespassing, and refusing a lawful order from a police officer is also a crime.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Especially if they challenge the legitimacy of addled-Biden’s ascent to the Presidency!
Re:
Yeah, happens all the time, right after they take everyone’s guns and put the entire population into one giant FEMA camp, while using HAARP’s weather and mind control rays for fun and profit. Something about silent black UN helicopters.
Was he arrest too far or her removal?
Frenchko literally stopped the meeting. It wasn’t her speech that was disruptive. It was her childish behavior. It was her bullying. If she was a mere member of the public, removal and arrest would have been acceptable.
I just don’t see the tools the judge recommended working. censure? I doubt she’d care? Adjourn the meeting? She’ll just act up at the next meeting and pick up right where they left off.
Could they remove her from the meeting without arresting her, or would the judge object to that too. I don’t see how the board can hold the legally minimum 50 meetings per year with this behavior.
When “free speech” becomes assault, you’ve left the realm of what’s “protected.”
Perhaps they should start the next meeting with a nap so everyone isn’t cranky.