⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court invented a rule that will allow police officers to arrest people in retaliation for disfavored speech or actions without liability. What that means is: if you’re caught jaywalking in violation of a local ordinance while wearing a #BlackLivesMatter shirt, the police could arrest you for the shirt and use jaywalking as the actual offense. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
In Nieves v. Bartlett, a court ruled that individuals cannot sue police officers for retaliatory arrest if those officers had probable cause to arrest them for any crime, no matter how minor. And even if the real reason for the arrest was speech, the officers didn’t like or finding out they’re being recorded.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
According to Slate, Congress recognized making officers financially liable was a highly effective way to deter such misconduct. Hence the introduction of Section 1983 in the federal law, which enables lawsuits against state officers for violating constitutional rights.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Loitering is a minor infraction amongst many that are frequently violated but without incident, but could now be enforced more stringently as a pretext to arrest people engaged in speech or normal activity the officers may not like. If the change happens, Nieves v. Bartlett may have a devastating effect on demonstrators, press, and anyone who tries to exercise their free speech rights in public. That also includes the right to film the police or verbally challenge officer misconduct, as we’ve see more often throughout the last several years. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court invented a rule that will allow police officers to arrest people in retaliation for disfavored speech or actions without liability. What that means is: if you’re caught jaywalking in violation of a local ordinance while wearing a #BlackLivesMatter shirt, the police could arrest you for the shirt and use jaywalking as the actual offense. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
In Nieves v. Bartlett, a court ruled that individuals cannot sue police officers for retaliatory arrest if those officers had probable cause to arrest them for any crime, no matter how minor. And even if the real reason for the arrest was speech, the officers didn’t like or finding out they’re being recorded.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
According to Slate, Congress recognized making officers financially liable was a highly effective way to deter such misconduct. Hence the introduction of Section 1983 in the federal law, which enables lawsuits against state officers for violating constitutional rights.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Loitering is a minor infraction amongst many that are frequently violated but without incident, but could now be enforced more stringently as a pretext to arrest people engaged in speech or normal activity the officers may not like. If the change happens, Nieves v. Bartlett may have a devastating effect on demonstrators, press, and anyone who tries to exercise their free speech rights in public. That also includes the right to film the police or verbally challenge officer misconduct, as we’ve see more often throughout the last several years. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀