An All-To-Familiar
Gesture With Her Hand and Without Four of Her Fingers Showing
While this decision from 2019 by
the Sixth Circuit Cout of Appeals has nothing to do with business law, it is at
least entertaining. In this case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals considered
whether a police officer violated a driver’s civil rights by pulling her over
after she flipped him off. The court found that indeed her rights were violated.
Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard, 918 F.3d 494
(6th Cir. 2019).
Minard, a police officer in
Michigan, stopped Cruise-Gulyas for speeding. He however, wrote the ticket for
a non-moving violation. Cruise-Gulyas, as she pulled away from the traffic
stop, as described by the Sixth Circuit “made in all-too-familiar gesture to
Minard with her hand and without four of her fingers showing.” Minard pulled
her over again and wrote out a ticket for a moving violation.
Cruise-Gulyas sued Minard under
§ 1983, alleging that by pulling her over a second time and changing the
non-moving moving violation ticket to a moving violation, he violated her
constitutional rights. Specifically, she claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment
against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as retaliation for having
engaged in protected speech under the First Amendment and restriction of her
liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Minard
sought to have the suit dismissed on the basis that he had qualified immunity
for his actions. When the federal district court denied that effort, he brought
this appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit would hold
that Minard was in the wrong.
In pulling Cruise-Gulyas over a
second time, Minard violated her rights against unreasonable search and
seizure. While he may have had probable cause for pulling her over the first
time, his authority to do so in connection with her having been speeding ended
when that first stop concluded. Relying on prior law, flipping off a police
officer is not illegal or indicative of an illegal violation.
With respect to the First
Amendment issue, the court observed, again in reliance upon prior law, that “Any
reasonable officer would know that a citizen who raises her middle finger
engages in speech protected by the First Amendment.”
Having denied Minard qualified
immunity, the case would have gone back to the District Court for further
fact-finding and a decision on the merits.
No comments:
Post a Comment