Louisiana Law Enforcement Has Been Abusing An Unconstitutional Law To Arrest People For Trying To File Complaints

from the very-convenient-knowledge-of-the-law dept

Police officers aren't legal experts. No court expects them to know the intricacies of the laws they're paid to enforce. Close enough is good enough when it comes to pretextual stops, street-level friskings, and other assorted Constitutional skirtings.

But no one but a cop would know the ins and outs of stupid laws left on the books by careless legislators or how to wield them like weapons against those who dare to start hassling The Man. Got a criminal defamation law still laying around? Why not use it to arrest and charge critics gathering a few too many eyeballs to their personal blogs. Any number of charges, from disorderly conduct to "assaulting an officer" can be made to cover "contempt of cop" arrests. And every stupid "Blue Lives Matter" law has been abused at least once, with the oversensitive cops of New Orleans leading the way.

Given that two-thirds of the links above direct you to Louisiana law enforcement officers and officials, it should come as no surprise Louisiana officers are using another bad law to bring criminal charges against people who aren't absolutely enthralled with their law enforcement experience. (via The Watch)

On April 30, 2015, William Aubin Jr. was at home with his wife in Livingston Parish, Louisiana when a patrol car from the sheriff’s office pulled onto his street. The deputy, William Durkin, was there to investigate a reckless driving complaint. Aubin wasn’t involved in the incident but he knew about it and went outside of his home to speak with Durkin. During a vulgar and combative conversation, according to Aubin, Durkin repeatedly called Aubin a “pussy.”

“I’m calling your supervisor,” Aubin said. “I’m gonna get you fired.” Aubin took out his cell phone, called the sheriff’s department, and started walking back towards his house. But before he made it inside, Durkin arrested him. The charge: intimidation of a public official — a felony that in Louisiana carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

This isn't the first time the law's been used to charge someone for attempting to file a complaint. Michael Stein of In Justice Today points out the same charge was leveled against Travis Seals, an arrestee seeking to file a complaint after he was pepper sprayed despite already being handcuffed. Seals got another charge added to his docket: public intimidation.

In both cases, the state DA showed up in court to defend the use of the law to charge citizens looking to file complaints.This law should have been tossed in the legislative trash last year when a federal judge had this to say about it:

In a September 2017 ruling, Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana pilloried the application of the statute in the Aubin case. “The right to criticize the police without risk of arrest distinguishes a democracy from a police state,” he wrote.

The same thing happened in the Seals case. Another federal judge took a look at the law and found it egregiously unconstitutional, considering it could be deployed to arrest people complaining about cops, filing lawsuits against government officials, or voting for the "wrong" public officials.

Anything a public employee could possibly takes offense to can be construed as "intimidation." ANYTHING.

In August 2017, the ACLU condemned the statute after it was used in the case of a Northern Louisiana man who raised his middle finger to a state trooper.

Despite the law's clear lack of constitutionality, the state District Attorney continues to fight for the law's continued existence. So do law enforcement officials. Sheriff Ard -- a defendant in the Aubin lawsuit -- claimed the law was necessary to prevent "threats" from "influencing the behavior of police officers." Seems like better training and better officers would take care of this problem -- especially when the "threat" consists of curse words, extended fingers, and filing complaints.

Despite the legal challenges, the law lingers. It will continue to be abused until it's rewritten or stricken. State prosecutors have already shown their willingness to treat these as criminal violations, rather than law enforcement abusing the law and their position to shut down criticism of police officers.


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Annonymouse, 7 May 2018 @ 4:43am

    So when will all involved be punished for their behaviour.
    What do people have to do?
    Tar feathers and even the stocks seem too good.
    Candle Jack says we are going to need a whole lot more rope.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 4:44am

    claimed the law was necessary to prevent "threats" from "influencing the behavior of police officers"

    What influence? It's already been known for a while that officers don't need to actually be intimidated or threatened; they just need to "think" their life "might" be in (a little) "danger". You could be injured, unarmed, innocent, a child, the family pet, holding a cellphone or a Wiimote, and that's enough to give the cop free reign over your civilian ass.

    If having to interact with mean people makes these cops piss their pants, what business do they have being figures of authority?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bruce C., 7 May 2018 @ 3:18pm

      Re: Threats

      Not to mention that credible threats of violence should get you arrested under more broadly applicable laws that protect us all from threats, not just government officials. Louisiana is playing the same game ISPs do: get away with whatever you can, and if someone has the balls to take you to court over it, try to prolong the case until they're driven into bankruptcy. At least they haven't introduced a binding arbitration clause in their jailhouse paperwork...yet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 4:46am

    Bad laws equal bad communities

    Lousiana has a reputation for corrupt cops and officials. This just adds credibility to it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 11:56am

      Re: Bad laws equal bad communities

      There's no good cops. The Blue Line is the biggest GANG in the U.S. They're all bad and corrupt. If so-called good one didn't stand there watching the corrupt cops do their thing and then defend them later on, or says they didn't see anything wrong. They are just as bad and guilty as the rest.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    carlb, 7 May 2018 @ 4:50am

    It's not just Louisiana

    Georgia just arrested someone a month ago for driving while Canadian... and she wasn't even black:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-woman-arrested-jailed-in-u-s-for-driving-with-a- canadian-licence-1.4648561

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 5:05am

    ah! nothing like living in 'the Police State' especially when it's backed by the law!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    cryophallion (profile), 7 May 2018 @ 5:52am

    Enabling/Prosecutorial Discretion

    Let me preamble this by saying that what the officers in this case are doing is absolutely wrong and is a clear abuse of power.

    That being said, I blame the prosecutors as much as the cops. They seem to want it both ways. They will justify their showing up in court and arguing for these laws because "they have to use the laws that are on the books". Then, when they don't want to throw the book at someone (and the book keeps getting bigger and heavier), or if it becomes a pr scandal, suddenly they can claim "prosecutorial discretion".

    I like to call it "enabling", and not taking a stand for what they should. People talk about jury nullification as a way to stand up against bad laws - prosecutors can just choose not to pursue those charges.

    There are some nasty realities out there now:
    1. The desire for winning means throwing as many charges as they can to see what will stick (see Aaron Schwartz, among many others). If they were caught, they are guilty, and their job is to argue that side. The person's defense attorney is the only one that's supposed to advocate for their client. It's all about getting as many wins as they can, with no moral regard.

    2. The cozy relationship police have with too many trades has become an issue. Reporters don't want to lose sources, so they don't report bad things, or spin things (note: this is also true in politics and sports reporting - all too many journalists now are part of the machine they report on). And prosecutors are too indoctrinated into the us vs them philosophy. See Ken's post over at reason: http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/23/confessions-of-an-ex-prosecutor

    But I blame the prosecutors for not having a chat with the cop in a back room somewhere saying this isn't ok. They are supposed to be a parent here in a way, as a safeguard. They are failing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Snape (profile), 7 May 2018 @ 6:25am

    Liability Insurance

    Surgeons have liability insurance, so if they mess up they can compensate their patients. If they mess up too much, they are no longer surgeons, since their premiums will skyrocket.

    It's time for all law enforcement officers to get the same. Instead of government entities paying out settlements, the insurance for the officers will pay out. When their behavior is too egregious, they will no longer be able to afford insurance and they'll no longer be a police officer. And if they're shunted off to a different department a few counties over, their premiums will follow.

    Good police officers will keep their low premiums and keep their jobs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 7:38am

      Re: Liability Insurance

      Their insurance is taxpayer funds. They act like it is unlimited and as if their conduct had nothing to do with how much was spent this year.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 8:14am

        Re: Re: Liability Insurance

        That's because taxpayer money literally is unlimited. It's only when a tiny town gets hit with a multi-million dollar payout that it even becomes an issue. Most cities (and all big ones) have a budget set aside for police brutality and similar liability lawsuits, which they happily cut checks from (and in fact they might be under pressure to use up rather than risk getting pared down from the budget in future years). Yes, it's always much easier to spend someone else's money.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 10:20am

          Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

          "Yes, it's always much easier to spend someone else's money."

          Don't worry, the government has heard the cries of the people telling them to raise taxes so that they can pay for more stuff.

          What if I told you that government can save you from everything? Would you vote to give it that power?

          What if I told you that when you do, they will only use it against you? Would you even care?

          Government is the greatest proof of Stockholm Syndrome. People are constantly assaulted by government and yet they ask for more!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 10:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

            You are conflating government with rich greedy asshole

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 11:10am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

              its funny how you can think they are not one and the same.

              A rich and greedy asshole might not have been the one that set up your government but a rich and greedy asshole will soon be along to take it from you... usually with your undying affection and permission too.

              We all know how to take candy from babies... and rich people know how to take all of your liberties away under the guise of protecting you.

              You are still free to, not understand how or why, the entire time it happens to you though...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 8:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

                Understanding it, and attempting to vote those rich assholes out, clearly hasn't stopped you from whinging to us about it though.

                Even on articles where Techdirt complains about the government you complain about it. It's obvious that short of every person on the planet giving you a blowjob, nothing will satisfy you.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Adonai222 (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 6:31pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

                  Tell that to the city of Bell, Ca. They are bankrupt and can't pay pensions because their leaders thought that "Taxpayer money" was unlimited.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 10:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

          "That's because taxpayer money literally is unlimited."

          Obviously, this is incorrect.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 11:51am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

            "That's because taxpayer money literally is unlimited."

            Obviously, this is incorrect.

            If its treated as if its unlimited - then whats the difference?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 6:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

              What's the diff? --- The fact that it is not.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 11:39pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

                Computer memory is also treated as unlimited, otherwise applications would have to take care not to exhaust the memory. Operating systems take care for them. It's a form of resource management. The same principle applies to tax payers money

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Bruce C., 7 May 2018 @ 3:25pm

        Re: Re: Liability Insurance

        Actually, the taxpayer funds are normally used to buy liability insurance for the whole police force (and probably the fire dept and other services as well).

        The taxpayers only get involved in the payout when the insurance company is able to show that the cops behavior was so far outside the norm that it isn't covered under the liability policy. Or alternatively, the insurance premiums go up if there are enough claimable cases in proportion to the premiums.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Valkor, 7 May 2018 @ 4:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: Liability Insurance

          That's the point.
          If premiums were paid by an individual, and that individual had to keep up that coverage, there would be incentive for reasonable behavior.

          It works for doctors and contractors...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 9:34am

      Re: Liability Insurance

      Sure why not give the insurance industry their own police force.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      tin-foil-hat, 7 May 2018 @ 11:53am

      Re: Liability Insurance

      It's hard to imform on your coworkers. This is true of any job. This is a good way to give a voice job performance alone. It's a good idea. hence it will never happen.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      WC_TN, 22 May 2018 @ 7:10pm

      Re: Liability Insurance

      The same should go for prosecutors. All immunity should be stripped away. When they know they can be left without so much as a pot to piss in for abusing their authority they'll be much more careful to ensure they have the right person and are relying on what is legitimately best evidence.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    norahc (profile), 7 May 2018 @ 6:26am

    "Police officers aren't legal experts. No court expects them to know the intricacies of the laws they're paid to enforce."

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you wear a badge and have been trained on the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 7:41am

    Confused cop

    So he charged Aubin with "intimidation of a public official " for threatening to report misconduct to a supervisor. But we all know the supervisor will not care, and would be well above average even to record the complaint at all. Nothing will come of filing it. Doesn't the cop know the report is meaningless? If he does (meaning, he's totally safe from reprimand), why is he intimidated? If he doesn't (meaning, he expects the report to lead to a reprimand), why is he giving the department more demerits to hold against him?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 10:37am

      Re: Confused cop

      "So he charged Aubin with "intimidation of a public official " for threatening to report misconduct to a supervisor."

      Is it illegal to not report a violation of the law?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 7 May 2018 @ 10:57am

        Re: Re: Confused cop

        Ah, see that's where you're confused. You see much like when a president does it it's not a crime, when a cop does it it's also not a crime, no matter what 'it' happens to be. As such it's flat out impossible to report a cop violating the law because their actions are, by definition, always within the law.

        ... I wish this was entirely sarcastic rather than all too true in far too many courts.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        tin-foil-hat, 7 May 2018 @ 11:48am

        Re: Re: Confused cop

        Everything is illegal in the US. The Oligarchy are exempt.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 7 May 2018 @ 7:44am

    Attempting to solve overcrowding in Paris prisons in 1719, France offered freedom to prisoners if they agreed to marry a prostitute and move to Louisiana.

    I mention this in hope that one thing will lead to another, and a Louisiana politician has Ancestry.com charged with "intimidation of a public official."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rich, 7 May 2018 @ 7:45am

    How come the courts always give cops a break when it comes to know the laws they are suppose to enforce, but when it comes to citizens, ignorance of the law is no excuse?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 8:00am

      Re:

      How come the courts always…

      The system is rigged.

      It's a structural problem. The judges are not really bad people for perpetuating a rigged system. But while they're powerless to change it, judges lack the moral courage to resign in protest.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    stderric, 7 May 2018 @ 8:21am

    Well, they may be using an 'intimidation of a public official' law to intimidate the public, but at least they know how irony works.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 8:42am

      Re:

      Plus, the law avoids a faux pas by using 'public official' instead of 'public servant'... because that would've crossed the line.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 8:30am

    probably useless advice

    Never threaten to complain.

    Anyone who threatens to file a complaint against a cop or sue the police department, while still under arrest or detention ... is either very naïve, recklessly brave, or just a complete idiot. Best option is to put your ego aside and get down on your knees whenever up against a cop, record the whole thing, then quietly file your complaint (or hire a lawyer and sue) later when you're far enough away to safely do so.

    Likewise, never threaten to murder ....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 10:42am

      Re: probably useless advice

      Agreed. And do not think tv shows and movies provide good rational, experience or guidance as they are hilariously wrong almost all the time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 12:21pm

        Re: Re: probably useless advice

        TV poker tournament shows might be the most fitting, as in "never show your cards until you play your hand."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Docrailgun, 7 May 2018 @ 9:45am

    Hardly "filing a complaint"

    as much as I think "intimadidation of a LEO" is bullshit, if the law is on the books and an idiot tells a cop he's going to get the cop fired that's pretty much intimidtion of a LEO, isn't it?

    Also, the guy probably should have asked himself if it was a good idea to engage with the deputy at all, considering his temperment. Someone who's willing to call a deputy a pussy and chew them out probably has a pretty short temper to begin with. Maybe a little self-control was in order?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Killercool (profile), 7 May 2018 @ 9:54am

      Re: Hardly "filing a complaint"

      ...It was the DEPUTY calling the RESIDENT a pussy.

      But, yes, self-control was definitely in order.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 10:23am

        Re: Re: Hardly "filing a complaint"

        At least the DEPUTY waited until the William Aubin Jr. gave him a very flimsy excuse to make the arrest, and maintained enough self control not to shoot William out of hand.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 12:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: Hardly "filing a complaint"

          I'm not too sure if you're just being cynic. But given the history of unwarranted force deployed by law enforcement, I'll assume that you are being serious in that LEOs can't be expected to be trusted to handle their weapon with care, just like a bear or any other wild animal can't be trusted not to attack you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 1:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Hardly "filing a complaint"

            I'm not too sure if you're just being cynic.

            Neither am I, and that says a lot about the image that US cops are creating for themselves.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2018 @ 9:59am

      Re: Hardly "filing a complaint"

      Read again. Aubin is the victim here, the civilian being verbally and physically assaulted by the thug Durkin. And, since the law in question is designed for abuse, of course you can engineer any conduct as intimidation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        WC_TN, 22 May 2018 @ 7:19pm

        Re: Re: Hardly "filing a complaint"

        This same scenario plays out in prisons. Whenever a guard metaphorically drops his or her drawers and craps all over you and you tell that officer you're going to file a grievance against him or her, you get written up for "intimidating".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 7 May 2018 @ 10:52am

    "We must protect our delicate feelings."

    So do law enforcement officials. Sheriff Ard -- a defendant in the Aubin lawsuit -- claimed the law was necessary to prevent "threats" from "influencing the behavior of police officers."

    This of course does not work both ways, threats by the police against the public are very much protected and will be defended by their buddies in blue and the courts.

    If 'you've been abusive and therefor I'm going to report you to your supervisors' counts as a 'threat', then pulling a gun, placing a hand on a gun, even implying that non-compliance might results in unpleasant circumstances for the non-cop should damn well count as well, yet I suspect you wouldn't see a prosecutor taking that case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Gentry E Newsom, 13 May 2018 @ 8:08pm

    Civil Rights Violators

    File Suit against these sssobs you need a lawyer with internal fortitude from another state..file in federal court
    and hurt those pussy's in the purse. They are walking all over you folks...and refuse to talk to any Pussy with a badge that should make it a lot tougher to fuck citizens around.Take the 5th don't give them any ammo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Matthew zugsberger, 17 Jul 2018 @ 9:52pm

    Dirty cops

    Every cop in America needs to be hog-tied while we service there wives in front of them before we shoot them in the face

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


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
Special Affiliate Offer

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.