Court Awards Qualified Immunity To Florida Deputy Who Arrested A Driver For An 'I EAT ASS' Window Decal

from the better-eaten-than-beaten-i-suppose dept

When the First Amendment meets a law enforcement officer's ability to be offended on the behalf of the general public, the First Amendment tends to lose.

The ability to be a proxy offendee affords officers the opportunity to literally police speech. They're almost never in the right when they do this. But they almost always get away with it. That's why a Texas sheriff felt comfortable charging a person sporting a "FUCK TRUMP" window decal with disorderly conduct. That's why a Tennessee cop issued a citation for a stick-figures-in-mid-coitus "Making my family" window decal.

And that's why a Florida law enforcement officer pulled over and arrested a man for the "I EAT ASS" sticker on his window. According to Deputy Travis English's arrest report, he noticed the sticker and assumed it violated the state's obscenity law. He was, of course, wrong about this. But he called his supervisor for clarification and was assured (wrongly) that this sticker violated the law.

He offered to let the driver, Dillon Webb, be on his way if he removed the word "ASS" from the decal. Webb refused, (correctly) asserting his First Amendment right to publicize his non-driving activities. English's report is full of dumb things (and, ironically, some incorrect English). Here's what he had to say about the stop and the driver's assertion of his Constitutional rights. (All errors in the original.)

While speaking with the occupants and informing Dillon of the reason for the traffic stop, Dillon became defensive about the sticker on his truck and stated: "Their just words." I then asked Dillon how a parent of a small child would explain the meaning of the words "I EAT ASS". Dillon then told me that would be up to the parent.

[...]

Dillion was then transported to the Columbia County Detention facility without incident where he was charged with Obscene writing on vehicles and resisting an Officer without violence.

One count of Obscene writing. And one count of Contempt of Cop, as expressed in the form of advocating for one's own rights. Here's what awaited Dillon following his arrest:

Among other things, Officer Dampier performed a thorough pat-down search of Webb and was present when Webb was required to strip naked and put on the clothes provided by the Jail.

CCSO Officers placed Webb in a cell while his mother worked with a bail bondsman to secure his release. Although the exact length of time Webb spent in the Jail is in dispute, suffice it to say Webb was incarcerated for more than an hour. Webb paid approximately $225.00 to retrieve his truck from the tow company, $250.00 to the bail bondsman, and a $15.00 Jail fee.

That's from the decision [PDF] issued by a Florida federal court, which unfortunately allows these officers to exit the lawsuit early because it wasn't clearly established that misreading a state statute to support a stop, search, arrest, vehicle seizure, temporary jailing (following another search), and the issuance of criminal charges was the wrong thing to do when confronted by an "I EAT ASS" decal. (via Volokh Conspiracy, h/t Andrew Fleischmann)

The court says qualified immunity applies because it's not immediately clear an "I EAT ASS" decal is protected speech, at least not under Florida law. Even if the officers were incorrect in their reading of the law, they're shielded from further litigation because they both subjectively believed the decal violated the law.

As an initial matter, it is undisputed that Deputy English and Corporal Kirby subjectively interpreted the Sticker as depicting a sexual act and believed that the Sticker violated Florida’s obscenity statute. While Webb denies the Sticker was in fact obscene, in interviews he repeatedly acknowledged the sexual nature of his Sticker, albeit couched as an attempt at humor, showing that the notion that an erotic message was more than hypothetical—it could reasonably be viewed as the predominant message being communicated. Indeed, others in the videos similarly acknowledged, both directly and indirectly, that the Sticker described a sexual act. Given this evidence, including Webb’s own statements, it is beyond dispute that reasonable officers possessing the same knowledge as Deputy English and Corporal Kirby could have thought the Sticker depicted a sexual act, and as such arguably violated Florida Statute section 847.011(2).

The speech might have been protected, even given its "sexual nature," if it contained any "serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value." The judge says this sticker doesn't, or, if it does, it was not immediately apparent to Deputy English and his direct supervisor.

Here, Deputy English and Corporal Kirby’s determination that the Sticker lacked serious value under Florida law was not inherently unreasonable under the circumstances. As such, the Court finds reasonable officers in the same circumstances and with the same knowledge as Deputy English and Corporal Kirby could believe Webb’s Sticker was obscene, making it an arrestable offense under Florida law.

Using that logic, the court waves away his challenge of the resisting arrest charge.

Because the Court finds Webb’s arrest was arguably justified under Florida’s obscenity law, the Court need not separately address his arrest for resisting without violence.

So, even if the first charge may have been a misreading of the law, Dillon's "resistance" (which was little more than refusing to alter the sticker and stating he had a First Amendment right to display it -- and that's according to the Deputy's arrest report), the second charge can't be challenged because… one of the charges was close enough to lawful to make everything lawful? Maybe it's more nuanced than that, but if it is, the court didn't feel like sharing its thought process. That additional charge is accepted in whole because the obscenity charge was close enough to legit to justify the arrest.

As for the trickier part of the case -- determining whether or not the sticker actually violated law and/or whether or not Webb's First Amendment rights were actually violated -- the court decides it doesn't need to do much thinking about that issue either.

Here, in evaluating the applicability of the doctrine of qualified immunity, the Court need not determine whether genuine issues of fact exist as to the question of whether Deputy English and Corporal Kirby violated Webb’s right to be free from First Amendment retaliation because the constitutional rights Webb alleges the Defendants violated were not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Since the court is unwilling to make any determination on the applicability of the law to the speech in question, the question remains open. And an open question is just more unsettled law -- the sort of thing that allows officers to violate rights and avoid facing the consequences because the qualified immunity doctrine not only short-circuits civil rights lawsuits, it almost always preempts any legal discussion of the government's alleged rights violations. Going forward, Florida law enforcement remain free to misread laws involving possibly-protected speech to punish people for words they subjectively find offensive.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arrests, dillon webb, florida, free speech, i eat ass, qualified immunity, travis english


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    ECA (profile), 7 Oct 2021 @ 1:46pm

    ?and he couldnt

    "I eat rump roast"?
    "I eat things fed to your Cow"?
    "I eat the New white meat"?

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

  • identicon
    AnonyOps, 7 Oct 2021 @ 2:04pm

    The presiding Florida judge(s) is incorrect and a corrupt actor defiling the institution.

    Cohen v. California
    Seal of the United States Supreme Court
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Argued February 22, 1971
    Decided June 7, 1971
    Full case name Paul Robert Cohen, Appellant v. State of California
    Citations 403 U.S. 15 (more)
    91 S. Ct. 1780; 29 L.2d 284; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 32
    Case history
    Prior Defendant convicted, Los Angeles Municipal Court; affirmed, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969); rehearing denied, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District 11-13-69; review denied, Supreme Court of California, 12-17-69
    Subsequent Rehearing denied, 404 U.S. 876 (1971).
    Holding
    The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. The First Amendment places a heavy burden on the justification of prior restraint in order to curtail free speech. Court of Appeal of California reversed.
    Court membership

    Chief Justice
    Warren E. Burger
    Associate Justices
    Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
    John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
    Potter Stewart · Byron White
    Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun

    Case opinions
    Majority Harlan, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall
    Dissent Blackmun, joined by Burger, Black; White (in part)
    Laws applied
    U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV;
    Cal. Penal Code § 415
    Wikisource has original text related to this article:
    Cohen v. California

    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse.

    The Court ultimately found that displaying a mere four-letter word was not sufficient justification to allow states to restrict free speech and that free speech can be restricted only under severe circumstances beyond offensiveness. The ruling set a precedent used in future cases concerning the power of states to regulate free speech in order to maintain public civility. "

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

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

    • identicon
      Paul B, 7 Oct 2021 @ 2:29pm

      Re:

      Sadly this is how the law works, Any Lawyer worth his salt would be shouting "Cohen" and the judge would basically say "Ya but that was a Jacket in a court house, not a decal on a car. Does not apply in a qualified Immunity case as it needs to be the same situation".

      Now an appeals court can review this decision and send it back to the judge, at the appeals court you could bring up statements from the supreme court like "we did not intend QI to be this narrow".

      At the end of the day you only win cases like this when you have $$. You need enough $$ to make the judge assume anything said is going to be appealed so he has to actully pay attention.

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

    • identicon
      me, 8 Oct 2021 @ 5:21am

      Re: This is why bible thumping nonsense "laws" such as this

      Are why South is and will continue to be a cultural wasteland among other foul things.

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

  • identicon
    Bobvious, 7 Oct 2021 @ 2:09pm

    The ironing is delicious

    "Florida? But, that's America's wang" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zlkn9cHWxY

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

  • identicon
    AnonyOps, 7 Oct 2021 @ 2:09pm

    The presiding Florida judge(s) is incorrect and a corrupt actor defiling the institution.

    Cohen v. California
    Seal of the United States Supreme Court
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Argued February 22, 1971
    Decided June 7, 1971
    Full case name Paul Robert Cohen, Appellant v. State of California
    Citations 403 U.S. 15 (more)
    91 S. Ct. 1780; 29 L.2d 284; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 32
    Case history
    Prior Defendant convicted, Los Angeles Municipal Court; affirmed, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969); rehearing denied, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District 11-13-69; review denied, Supreme Court of California, 12-17-69
    Subsequent Rehearing denied, 404 U.S. 876 (1971).
    Holding
    The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. The First Amendment places a heavy burden on the justification of prior restraint in order to curtail free speech. Court of Appeal of California reversed.
    Court membership

    Chief Justice
    Warren E. Burger
    Associate Justices
    Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
    John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
    Potter Stewart · Byron White
    Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun

    Case opinions
    Majority Harlan, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall
    Dissent Blackmun, joined by Burger, Black; White (in part)
    Laws applied
    U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV;
    Cal. Penal Code § 415
    Wikisource has original text related to this article:
    Cohen v. California

    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse.

    The Court ultimately found that displaying a mere four-letter word was not sufficient justification to allow states to restrict free speech and that free speech can be restricted only under severe circumstances beyond offensiveness. The ruling set a precedent used in future cases concerning the power of states to regulate free speech in order to maintain public civility. "

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Oct 2021 @ 3:11pm

    "were not clearly established at the time of his arrest."

    Your First Amendment Rights are not clearly established.
    Thats this ruling.

    Pretty sure when I talk about them blowing an easy first amendment ruling getting them thrown off the bench, this is a poster case for it.

    Allowing the contempt of cop charge to stand is just that little extra bit of stupid that confirms the Judge needs to be off the bench.

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

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 7 Oct 2021 @ 4:34pm

    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse.*"

    *Unless you're a cop.

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

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 7 Oct 2021 @ 6:51pm

    Cop pulls over man with "I EAT ASS" sticker, asks "How much?" Doesn't like the price...

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

  • identicon
    PrivateFrazer, 7 Oct 2021 @ 11:27pm

    I don't understand

    Are you not allowed to eat donkey in florida?

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

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 8 Oct 2021 @ 8:04am

    ACAB

    And corrupt judges make sure they stay that way.

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

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Oct 2021 @ 2:05pm

    Can't beat the ride.

    This smacks of the police just not liking a civilian's... attitude and searched for something in the book to throw at him.

    There wasn't anything certain. But the civilian asserted his rights and didn't appropriately lick the fascist jackboot, so the officer instead threw the process at him, expecting the courts wouldn't care or world uphold his superiority.

    The officer was correct in this assumption, and now the civilian is jolly sorry for offending a law enforcement officer and an agent of the fascist police state.

    He'll wear kneepads from now on.

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


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

Introducing the new Techdirt Insider Chat, now hosted on Discord. If you are an Insider with a membership that includes the chat feature and have not yet been invited to join us on Discord, please reach out here.

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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