« Call for Papers -- Empirical Analysis of Wealth Transfer Law | Main | A funny thing happened on the way to the court of appeals »

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

"10,000 mostly drunk people" and "contempt of cop"

Here is my SCOTUSBlog recap of Monday's argument in Nieves v. Bartlett. I genuinely am not sure how this comes out, as no one on the Court was blatantly leaning in one direction and everyone seemed determined to find a middle ground between the government's extreme that would let no claims go forward and the respondent's extreme that would let too many claims go forward.

The argument will be best remembered for the Chief describing Arctic Man as "10,000 mostly drunk people in the middle of nowhere," a description that thrilled the journalist who wrote the leading story about the festival.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 27, 2018 at 11:55 AM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink

Comments

Just correcting my comment down there :

Should be : I find bit more interest , in those statements .....

And not : " is those statements ..." of course .

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Nov 27, 2018 2:20:26 PM

I find bit more interest , is those statements of justice Alito and Wilson ( the lawyer of the petitioner ) . Here we have , more serious attempt , to consider more substantial and practical balance .

On one hand , concerning the free speech right , Justice Alito was wondering , I quote :

" Did your client say anything that was of social importance "

On the other hand , Wilson suggested I quote :

that a probable - cause element should apply to arrest for " serious offenses " but not to petty offenses .

Having a look at Alaska penal code , I have found that offense of " disorderly conduct " and I quote the most relevant part , here :

AS 11.61.110. Disorderly Conduct.

(a) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if,

(3) in a public place, when a crime has occurred, the person refuses to comply with a lawful order of a peace officer to disperse;

End of quotation :

So , on one hand , nothing having any social importance of course it seems in his statements to the police officers , just insulting them . On the other hand , the article mentioned , stipulates clearly , that :

Only when a crime has been accomplished , and refusing to disperse ( which doesn't seem to be the case here ) .

So , it is hard to know the whole factual and legal configuration right now , but some preliminary ideas , for doing preliminary math , and provided , that insulting whatsoever a police officer , per se , is not an independent offense .

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Nov 27, 2018 2:17:13 PM

Post a comment