Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers

from the blue-lives-so-frail dept

The Louisiana legislature decided to help out its most underprivileged constituents -- law enforcement officers -- by making it a felony to "attack" them using nothing more than words.

When New Orleans police officers arrived at the scene of a disturbance to arrest an intoxicated man for banging on a hotel's windows and harassing the employees, the situation devolved into the totally expected.

According to arrest documents, Delatoba was drunk and banging on a window at the Royal Sonesta Hotel, 300 Bourbon St. around 5:15 a.m. Monday, when a witness who heard the banging told him to stop. Delatoba's warrant says he yelled at the witness, "calling him a n-----."

That witness, a security guard who works at a nearby building's mezzanine, along with a security supervisor for the Royal Sonesta, flagged down two Louisiana State Troopers who then escorted Delatoba to NOPD's 8th District station, the warrant states. Once at the station, the warrant states, Delatoba began to verbally "attack members of the New Orleans Police Dept." The warrant states Delatoba called one female officer a "dumb a-- c---" and another officer a "dumb a-- n-----."

In a shocking twist, an intoxicated man was rude and uncooperative while being arrested. (Have these cops never watched "COPS?") So of course the New Orleans police took it upon themselves to be legally offended by the sort of invective they hear from arrestees all the time. The state's hate crime law expansion allowed them to tack on additional charge after the arrest -- a felony with a potential five-year prison sentence.

Fortunately, the district attorney isn't nearly as thin-skinned as the overprotected cops. This decision was probably preceded by some heartfelt eye rolling and several rewritten statements to eliminate every last trace of derision.

Assistant District Attorney Christopher Bowman, a spokesman for Cannizzaro's office, said Monday (Oct. 24) the police officers Raul Delatoba cursed at were not victims of the crime that prompted his arrest initially. Rather, the "disparaging remarks" to officers were made during or after he was apprehended. The office officially refused the charges about two weeks ago.

After a bit of hindsight, the police department officially agrees with the DA's decision.

Additionally, NOPD spokesman Tyler Gamble said Sept. 8 that after reviewing the case, it was "clear that the responding officer incorrectly applied" the hate crime law.

But it's important to note that wasn't always the case. When the "incorrectly applied law" first came up, the NOPD shrugged and said it was up to the DA to figure out how much bullshit was contained in the bullshit charge.

This is exactly the sort of ridiculousness everyone but the supporters of the bill saw coming. Give law enforcement a law to abuse and they'll abuse it. The New Orleans police can now arrest people for calling them names -- not really the sort of thing the power of law enforcement should be used for. What they can't do is tack a charge on if they feel insulted in the process of arresting someone for unrelated offenses. At least not in New Orleans. The law is effective statewide, and there's no guarantee every government prosecutor will view it the way Cannizzaro's office did.

Hate crime laws are generally vaguely written and overbroad, but ones that append "blue lives matter" wording are even worse. They extend protection to historically privileged and powerful people and make it that much easier to slap "disrespectful" arrestees with felony charges. It's nothing more than a vehicle for abuse and does absolutely nothing to foster a healthy relationship between police officers and the communities they serve.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    art guerrilla (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 3:48am

    Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

    geez, do we have to explain the principles of true free speech for the thousandth time ? ? ?
    i recall when i was young-n-stupid (repetitive redundancy alert), it took me a handful of days reading and re-reading a passage of chomsky trying to get my head around it... the bottom line is, YOU CAN NOT censor/stifle/restrict or otherwise hide people's speech because you don't like it...
    PER-I-FUCKING-OD...
    you MUST defend your worst enemies right to spout their most hateful, vile, disgusting words, OR YOU ARE NOT FOR FREE SPEECH...
    (NOTE: as chomsky had to make clear for the idiots in the studio audience: this does NOT MEAN you 'agree' with the speech, it merely means you defend their RIGHT to say stupid shit...)
    you are 'for' speech you like, you are 'for' pretty speech, you are 'for' speech you agree with, you are 'for' harmless speech; BUT YOU ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT FOR FREE SPEECH when you start down the idiotic road of 'hate speech' and 'hate crimes'...
    THERE IS NO SUCH THING: there are crimes, and there is hate: if someone murders me, do i really care if they loved me or hated me ? ? ? oh, you love me ? oh, okay, then murdering me was ok then... love you too ! ! ! xxoo
    don't be daft, punks...

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.