Man Sues City After Arrest For Dropping F-Bombs In A Local Restaurant

from the an-expensive-show-of-force dept

Just because something offends a person (or someone is offended on behalf of someone else — more on that in a moment) doesn’t mean it’s illegal. And just because you’re eating a meal in full uniform doesn’t mean you can use your law enforcement powers to magically turn non-criminal acts into criminal ones. (via Legal Juice)

Tye Trujillo was arrested at IHOP, 3546 E. Main St. in Farmington [New Mexico], by three Farmington police officers after allegedly saying the word “F—” several times shortly before midnight on June 11, 2013, according to an arrest report.

The officers — Dennis Ronk, Albert Boognl and Tamara Smith — were eating dinner at the restaurant in full uniform when the offensive language was used, the report states.

Trujillo, 32, was at the restaurant with several friends. A family with three small children were seated near them, the report states.

According to the report, Ronk approached the men and told them that if they said the word one more time, he would arrest them.

Trujillo allegedly used the word again and Ronk followed through on his threat, the report states.

Trujillo was cited for disorderly conduct and was found guilty of violating city code in Farmington Municipal Court on April 10.

Not noted in the coverage of the story, but included in the complaint [pdf link] is this bit of information that indicates the officer wasn’t personally offended, but was acting on behalf of someone he assumed to be offended. From the arrest report:

I noticed a young couple sitting at a table directly behind the male subject’s and there was a family of three small children (approximately 3 to 8 years of age) and two adults sitting near my location.

Officer Ronk tried to gather more damning darning incriminating evidence to back up his “you must be offended” arrest, but the person he took offense on behalf of provided no help.

After placing Plaintiff into cuffs, Officer Ronk contacted a family, which included young children, who was also patronizing the restaurant at this time and sitting near Plaintiff’s table. One of the female adults at the table told Officer Ronk that she could hear the males using the “f word” but she kept the children busy and did not wish to provide information or get involved in the matter.

And why would she? Presumably she knew that loud swearing in public is something that happens from time to time and, at worst, reflects negatively on the person doing it, but is not actually a criminal act. Officer Ronk painted himself into a corner by issuing a “direct order” (no, really — that’s what it says in the arrest report) to Trujillo to stop saying “Fuck” and backing it up with the threat of an arrest. Trujillo called his bluff, leaving him no choice but to follow through.

Of course, the charges didn’t stick. The judge acquitted the plaintiff of the charges because saying the word “fuck” in a public space — even a public space containing children “approximately 3 to 8 years of age” — does not rise to the level of “disorderly conduct.” The Farmington city code states that disorderly conduct (in terms of speech) must be:

“…obscene, indecent, profane challenging or other words which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction in an average person.”

Seeing as the mother’s immediate reaction was to distract her children rather than punch Trujillo in his foul mouth, it stands to reason that the “average person” would not be “provoked into an immediate violent reaction” by the indiscriminate use of profanity. (On the other hand, directed profanities can provoke “immediate violent reactions” in some police officers, so be aware of that when combining the two.)

Because Officer Ronk couldn’t resist the urge to make a public space “safe” for someone else’s kids, the City of Farmington will likely be handing over a settlement to Trujillo in the near future. And once it does, constituents will be left holding the tab for a very expensive “fuck” they neither asked for nor enjoyed.

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 “Man Sues City After Arrest For Dropping F-Bombs In A Local Restaurant”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
59 Comments
Javarod (profile) says:

Re: The Bigger Crime Here

These days it seems to be rather common. I worked overnights at a Wal*Mart, and it isn’t all that uncommon to see parents bringing their kids with them at 2 and 3 in the morning.

As to the main story, kinda misleading, what we have here is a cop charging someone with a crime that doesn’t fit. I wouldn’t be surprised that if one took the time to look that there’s a law against swearing in public, albeit prolly a very old law that everyone’s forgotten about.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Promote him

Kudos to a cop who doesn’t know the very law he arrested someone over? Yeah, just because you’re apparently easy to offend, doesn’t magically make doing so a criminal offense, and while the staff might have been justified in asking him to leave, the cop wasn’t justified in mis-using a law to arrest someone who wasn’t breaking the law in question.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Disorderly Conduct

This is clearly Disorderly Conduct

“Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when people are behaving in a disruptive manner to themselves or others, but otherwise present no serious public danger.”

A typical definition of disorderly conduct defines the offense in these ways –
A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct.

“shortly before midnight” -ie (Drunk Ahole at IHOP)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Disorderly Conduct

The Farmington city code referenced in the article states:

“…obscene, indecent, profane challenging or other words which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction in an average person.”

Given the officer didn’t feel offended (otherwise, he surely would’ve put that in his report), and the mother was intelligent enough to ignore it, I disagree with you. There is no victim, other than the guy who got arrested by the misguided cop.

The only disorderly conduct here was by the “officer,” who disrupted a lawful assembly, and probably upset more patrons than the guy at the table did.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

The real "crime"

Officer Ronk painted himself into a corner by issuing a “direct order” (no, really — that’s what it says in the arrest report) to Trujillo to stop saying “Fuck” and backing it up with the threat of an arrest.

And here we see the real crime in the officer’s eyes: the failure of the guy to follow a direct order. This is an unfortunately common attitude with police officers. They tend to think that everyone must obey their orders no matter what. That simply isn’t true, no matter how hard the cops wish it were.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: The real "crime"

This is an unfortunately common attitude with police officers. They tend to think that everyone must obey their orders no matter what. That simply isn’t true, no matter how hard the cops wish it were.

Unfortunately, it is true in my state:

(7) As used in this section:

(a) “Obstruct” includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

MCL Section 750.81d

Although it may not be applicable to a case like the one we are discussing – it would depend upon whether the command was “lawful” or not and in Michigan our “swearing law” was overturned by our Appeals Court in 2002.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The real "crime"

Keyword is “lawful” command. Just because an officer gives you a command, does not mean it’s a lawful command.

Yes, that is true.

But it hasn’t always been that way. In 2004 the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on People v. Ventura and stated that the officer’s actions need not be lawful. This was overturned in 2012 with People v. Moreno and the lawful requirement was reinstated (it was common law prior to a statute change in 2002 combined with the 2004 ruling)

But in reality, all of that is really moot anyways. It’s only a defense against the charges. You still can be arrested, booked, charged, have to pay a lawyer and go to court before you can actually assert that the command was unlawful.

mattshow (profile) says:

When I lived in Halifax there was a case of a guy getting arrested in a donair shop late at night. I don’t remember exactly what the charge was but there it was something similar: he was drunk and disorderly.

Sadly, I can’t find a copy online, but the judge dismissed the case and talked about the need for context for these kind of charges, stating “Tony’s Donair Shop at 2am is not the Vatican Library”. (As anyone who has ever been to Tony’s at 2am can attest to).

Michael (profile) says:

The officers — Dennis Ronk, Albert Boognl and Tamara Smith — were eating dinner at the restaurant in full uniform when the offensive language was use

Were these officers working at the time? If so, why were they sitting in an IHOP rather than out doing their jobs?

Why did only one of the officers get involved in the arrest?

Finally, when did IHOP start serving donuts?

bob says:

Well that escalated quickly

The woman was not happy with the swearing but decided instead of being confrontational she would distract her kids and obviously didn’t want to be involved when the cop arrested the guy.

The cop was trying to be of service to the lady by stopping the swearing. However the cop obviously let his speech and actions get out of control and just moved to physical threats instead of just asking if the guy would stop because there were small kids in the vicinity.

While the guy does have free speech he should still be considerate of others around him. If he doesn’t then yeah just like Tim said it “reflects negatively on the person doing it”.

Still he shouldn’t have been arrested for the swearing or disobeying an illegal order.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Well that escalated quickly

The cop might have been trying to be of service, however, it doesn’t excuse threatening arrest for a non-existent crime. Had he simply said, “excuse me, but there are children at the next table – would you mind being more considerate with your language?” —and left it at that, regardless of the man’s response, I would agree with you.

However, once he decided to let his ego get out of control and threatened arrest, he’s no longer of any useful service to the lady, the community, his department, or his reputation.

Zonker says:

Re: Re: Well that escalated quickly

Exactly. And if the man had continued to swear anyway, the officer could go to the IHOP manager and complain. If the IHOP manager agrees, he could ask the man to leave. If the man doesn’t leave when asked, then the officer can arrest him for trespass.

It takes a little more effort to do things lawfully, but I guess that officers are too accustomed to taking short cuts or just ignoring the law altogether these days.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Well that escalated quickly

100% this. That is called the correct, reasonable, and obvious way to handle the situation. I’ll bet you that the potty-mouthed guy looked and acted suspicious or sketchy in some way, which caused the cop to simply want to harass him enough that he jumped at the slightest excuse to escalate the whole thing.

Regardless, the cop did a terrible job.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Well that escalated quickly

…the officer could go to the IHOP manager and complain.

And there’s the problem. The LEO, by going to the manager, would be admitting to himself that outside of actual law enforcement duties he has no more (or less) value to or authority over society than does any other citizen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Definition Of FUCK

“Perhaps one of the most interesting words in the
English language today is the word fuck.
Out of all of the English words that begin with the letter “F”,
fuck is the only word that is referred to as the “F” word.
Its the one magical word, just by its sound can describe
pain, pleasure, hate and love…”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW9bcaEOJvg

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

[two different comments]

So he was acquitted, or convicted? The article said he was convicted in municipal court, but the later says he was acquitted by the judge

The article suggests that it was a trial de novo in “real” court following a conviction in municipal court. Some places still have municipal courts and it is not uncommon for the defendant to be able to demand a new trial in real court as a matter of right.

Given the officer didn’t feel offended (otherwise, he surely would’ve put that in his report)

The general rule of thumb is that you cannot disturb the king’s peace. In other words, someone who is not a cop has to complain or there is no disturbing of the peace.

This still leaves the police with a fair amount of discretion. We have, here in the City, a fair number of street screechers who come out on Friday afternoons to yell at people about the need to adopt their religion. It disturbs downtown businesses, downtown pedestrians, even people inside offices with windows closed can hear these guys.

A church north of town trains them in how to be loud. The training does not appear to include any reference to making salvation appealing. Indeed, if one were to judge by the street screechers, hell might be a more attractive option. However, the complaints to the police are not about the message, just the volume at which it is delivered.

Complaints are frequent, but the police have declined to act. This is probably reprehensible on their part. I suspect that if someone were to go out there and yell rude words, it would get some attention.

The cops are correctly fearful that the street screechers will at least have representation at all stages of any legal proceedings. The problem is that an arrest for the rude words would then be content-based.

bdj says:

America needs to drop all this emphasis on political correctness and grow some thicker skin because it’s breeding a nation of total pussies. What if the guy had been discussing vaginas or penises? Still disorderly? I suspect not, and there is a 100% chance those kids have heard it before right at home (TV, parents, Internet, etc). Cops are prudish bullies…

Big Boy (profile) says:

Farmington FU's again

If he had said “I’m gonna LOVE the Hell outa that bitch when I get home.” Would he still have been arrested?

I suspect the officers had a long and boring night shift coming up and wanted an excuse to get out of a couple of hours alone, in a squad car, driving along empty streets. There is coffee at the jail and a chance to show domination over a “Spic”. The most exciting thing to do in Farmington at midnight.

Thugs in Blue.

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

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...