Court: Your 1st Amendment Rights End Where A Cop’s Horse’s Ears Begin

from the control-your-animal,-officer dept

Say what you will about the roster of Trump apologists being hosted by the Volokh Conspiracy (and I will say plenty if given the chance), but at least Eugene Volokh continues to surface truly interesting cases. (Ilya Somin remains worth reading as well.)

And this one is one for the record books. Possibly the first First Amendment case that involves one human and one horse. And it’s no regular horse, which is why this is a First Amendment lawsuit. The horse in question was ridden by Ocean City (Maryland) police officer Matthew Foreman.

What started as a nuisance call quickly became something else once plaintiff Reniel Meyler realized just how easily Officer Foreman’s mount could be taken off task.

The opinion [PDF] issued by the Maryland federal court recounts the evening’s events that led to this lawsuit. Reniel Meyler finished his shift at work and then headed to a local bar. Having only arrived shortly before the Cork Bar’s closing, Meyler downed a beer and then headed out to the parking lot to socialize with a couple of his friends, Yokimba Bernier and Christoper Clarke. While waiting in the car for Clarke to return from taking a walk with another friend, Meyler and Bernier listened to some music at high volume.

How high? That’s not on the record. It was apparently loud enough to “draw the attention” of two Ocean City PD officers, one of which was riding a horse named “Moose.” As the officers (and their horse) approached, the pair turned down the volume.

Most of the ensuing encounter was captured on Officer Foreman’s body camera. What it captured was something out of the ordinary. But first, the ordinary stuff.

Immediately upon Foreman’s arrival on the scene, the following exchange took place.

Foreman: Where in the world do you guys think this is OK at 2 o’clock in the morning?

Meyler: Jamaica.

Foreman: Well then go back to Jamaica, cause you can’t do it here.

Bernier: [Inaudible]

Foreman: We can hear you [from] three blocks away, and you can go to jail for noise in Ocean City. OK? You guys really want to go to jail for noise?

Bernier: [Inaudible]

Foreman: No, not a ticket. Jail. Like, handcuffs. Jail. Noise.

Having established the baseline and his control of the scene, Foreman hung around to make sure the music didn’t again rise to law-breaking levels. However, it soon became clear that although Foreman had control of the scene, he no longer had control of his horse.

About 1 minute and 50 seconds into the video, Meyler turns towards Moose and makes some clicking sounds. Moose does not immediately react, but about five seconds later he visibly moves his head and appears to take a step or two in response to the clicking.

!!!

Officer Foreman reined in Moose to stop the movement. As the ruling notes, the horse appeared to “remain calm for the remainder of the video.” Not so for everyone else. Some more arguing about noise levels occurred with Officer Foreman delivering some noises of his own.

In response to either Bernier or Meyler, Foreman says “no, no, you don’t wave your hands at me, boom boom boom you go to these.” As he says “boom boom boom” Foreman takes out a pair of handcuffs and brandishes them in front of Meyler and Bernier, implying they will be arrested.

Shortly after Officer Foreman’s “boom boom boom,” Meyler went back to his click click click, earning this response from the horse’s boss:

“Stop antagonizing my horse. You’re not allowed to do that. You can’t interrupt my animal.”

Just an amazing set of sentences, each one more amazing than the last. Even in context, there’s nothing quite like a cop telling a civilian not to “interrupt” their “animal.”

Then Meyler’s friend (Bernier) decided to up the ante by declaring it wasn’t illegal to “interrupt” Foreman’s horse, pointing out that people pet police horses and talk to them or whatever without being threatened with an arrest. Au contraire, said Officer Foreman, albeit in different words. And different actions.

TL; DR: Meyler continued to click. Foreman continued to yell stuff about “interfering” with his horse. The end result was Meyler being arrested for antagonizing a cop, even if the cop said it was all about antagonizing an animal that remained pretty much unperturbed for the running time of the body cam video.

The official charges were “failure to obey a lawful order” and “interference with a police animal.” The charges were voluntarily dismissed by the prosecutor a month after the arrest. The lawsuit followed, with Meyler arguing being arrested for clicking at a police horse violated his First Amendment rights.

While Meyler still has the opportunity to pursue this in court (the complaint was dismissed without prejudice), it’s unlikely any of his federal constitutional claims have any chance of being found in his favor. (He still has a state law claim he can pursue, however.) And he certainly won’t be allowed to claim his free speech rights were violated when he was first told, then arrested for talking to a cop horse.

Unsurprisingly, there’s absolutely no precedent establishing this particular form of expression:

Here, Meyler has not pointed to a single case involving an arrest made under Ocean City’s police animal interference ordinance, or, for that matter, any case anywhere involving any claims of wrongful arrest related to alleged interference with police animals. Nor has he pointed to any cases involving the application of First Amendment rights to human-animal interactions.

With probable cause supporting the arrest and the complete lack of precedent in play, qualified immunity protects Officer Foreman from this lawsuit. And the court’s not about to use this case to establish Dr. Doolittle-esque precedent protecting people who say things to or make noises at government animals. Meyler’s moonshot has failed. He’ll just have to live with the less satisfying victory of having the charges dismissed. And, given the circumstances, that’s probably the better of both options.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court: Your 1st Amendment Rights End Where A Cop’s Horse’s Ears Begin”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
39 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

The first Amendment claims sound like a bit much, but then again, I would say the same thing would go for the police treating every probable cause on four legs as an actual human officer.

Also what genius thought horses were a good idea? Did none of the cops consider the horrific injuries that happen with equestrianism? Did the department run out of Bearcats?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Just FYI, horses can be very useful in crowd-control

Even assuming benefit of the doubt, I don’t think I’d extend that to any animal handled by the police. These chucklefucks like to cosplay as badasses when they get their hands on any kind of weaponry; I wouldn’t trust them to use one of the most expensive and bulky animals with a modicum of safety.

But, I wasn’t aware that they could detect drugs.

Hey, if a cop can detect the scent of weed in a car driving by with the windows closed…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Horses are generally excellent at crowd control

They also tend to humanize their officers, making them appear more approachable, but perhaps as importantly, they also tend to teach their handlers to modulate their emotions. There’s a funny Horse Girl meme that goes around that is “When you work with horses you learn that only one of you can freak out at a time and it’s never your turn.”

They give the officer height and mobility while also making them more accessible to people, an effect you don’t get from a car or a motorcycle.

Police horses are carefully and specially trained to deal with unusual situations that a typical horse would not tolerate, but they are still horses.

Here’s a random article discussing police horses from Australia: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-03/why-do-we-still-need-police-horses-in-2020/12193954

The clicking sound is a typical horse command, but a police horse generally is trained to understand who it listens to. It doesn’t sound like the horse or its actions were particularly impacted, just that the officer lost his cool in the classic Respect My Authoritah style. If anything, the horse probably kept the situation from escalating.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It sounds a lot like the root problem is that the horse wasn’t properly trained to obey signals only from its rider.

(Or maybe the horse was just being friendly to the nice man who was inviting him to come closer — maybe there was come carrot or apple to be had.)

But either way, how is it now supposed to be the “civilian’s” fault, that the horse responded to the clicks, and something the “civilian” can be arrested and charged over?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

They also tend to humanize their officers, making them appear more approachable, but perhaps as importantly, they also tend to teach their handlers to modulate their emotions

Now this just sounds like advice that came from a few decades ago and has now aged like old milk.

Have you seen officers these days being humanized? Have you seen how they “modulate” their emotions?

Anonymous Coward says:

And, given the circumstances, that’s probably the better of both options.

How, exactly?

Saying things “at” anybody or anything is (supposed to be) protected by the first amendment, regardless of whether or not one could imagine Dr. Dolittle also saying those things.

If your horse is too badly trained to handle people talking to it, that’s a you problem, not an exception to basic rights.

LittleCupcakes says:

That lawyers and law professors have opinions on law that differ from (in this case) far-left wing “thought” is in no way evidence or even suggestive of the conspiracist indictment of Trump-apology. It’s a lie, really. I like Techdirt, and I wish the writers wouldn’t lie or engage in extremist or conspiracist crap.

No, VC is not largely, mostly, or even significantly, “Trump-apologist”. The writers’ differing-among-themselves legal opinions have been mostly long-held by people who implicitly or explicitly reveal their contempt of Trump (such is made clear by most VC writers) and are patently, obviously, made in good faith with careful attention to the law (even if they’re “wrong”).

Except Calabresi. That guy is a nimrod.

The far-wing extremist logic (a generous term) must somehow go like this: someone disagrees with me about a political subject, therefore they are evil or apologists or corrupt because I am infallibly moral, upstanding, and of correct political character so therefore “they” must be the opposite. It’s an intentional illiteracy, a love for blinders, an ignorant solidarity with tribe, and far beneath anyone of even mildly-discerning mind. Disgusting.

mechtheist (profile) says:

A little back-story should be discussed here. The officer is a fierce opponent of free speech and named his horse Moose as short for ‘Ed Moose’, the singular form of Ed Meese, the guy in Reagan’s orbit even when he was gov of California and Meese was instrumental in the crackdown on protests at Berkley in 1969 where a student, not even a protester, was killed [reminds of Kent State and 4 dead in Ohio…]. So this was a case involving talking to the horse Mr. Ed [Moose]. [Sorry about all of this]

Anon says:

Basically...

It comes down to the fact that the perp was deliberately trying to make the horse misbehave which could be dangerous. He wasn’t trying to speak, he was trying to disrupt the animal. Whether it was sufficiently disruptive to warrant arrest is up to the courts.

You are freely entitled, for example, to wave your arms vigorously in a non-threatening manner. If that makes the policeman’s horse scared, and you do so deliberately to provoke that reaction – that also crosses the line rom freedom of action or speech to deliberate interference.

I have limited sympathy for thee bozos.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

“the perp was deliberately trying to make the horse misbehave which could be dangerous. He wasn’t trying to speak, he was trying to disrupt the animal.”

This logic can then be applied to humans.
.. the perp was deliberately trying to make the human misbehave …
aka: inciting a riot
example: Jan 6
perp: MAGA

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...