Master Chase was part of a group of 10 teenagers at a San Diego park. Two members of the group matched the descriptions, given to police by some younger kids near the park, of high schoolers who were selling drugs. Chase was not one of the two suspects.
When the police told the two suspects to have seat on the ground, one cooperated, but the other, Brandon, refused to cooperate. Chase told Brandon that "this was bullshit" and that Brandon should "fuck the cop" and for Brandon to "not say shit". Brandon struggled with the police and was eventually cuffed and put in the back of a squad car.
More police arrived and the remaining teenagers were placed into handcuffs and questioned. Chase told everyone this was still "bullshit" and they "shouldn't say shit" to the police. This caused the other teenagers to question the police about why they were being handcuffed and to refuse to answer questions. The police then threatened to arrest the youngsters and call their parents should they refuse to cooperate. So the kids gave the police their names, except for Chase, who told the police he "pled the fifth" and again asserted the actions of the police constituted taurine egesta.
Chase was arrested and, before arriving at the booking station, provided his name to the police.
For his protestations, Chase was charged with violating California Penal Code section 148, which criminalizes willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer who is legally performing her duties. The Honorable Browder Willis, III, found Chase guilty and made Chase a ward of the court for one year or until he should reach the age of 18, whichever proves longer (I do not make this up-a judge actually said this, apparently suffering from discalculia).
A Fourth District panel reverses this nonsense.
The opinion first points out the obvious, that verbal criticism of the government is political speech, a category of speech entitled to First Amendment protection. As long as physical interference doesn't result, verbal criticism of the government is protected speech even if it is intended to interfere with the police. And "this is bullshit" is every bit as valid of a criticism as "Sir, your Constitutional violations against the citizenry are an affront to our great nation".
Second, even if Chase's urging his fellow citizens to withhold their names from the police could be said to have delayed the police, it cannot be the basis of a 148 because the detention of the eight non-suspects violated the Fourth Amendment, and were hence unlawful. Unless violating the Constitution is a "duty" of the constabulary (we're not there yet), Chase's protests cannot be said to have delayed any duty of the police.
Finally, Chase's refusal to give his name is also protected speech. Not until a suspect arrives at the booking desk, can his refusal constitute a violation of PC 148.
It is nice to see some pull-back from the appellate courts on what is required for a 148 under the "delay" prong. While "resisting" and "obstructing" are sufficiently clear, the "delay" prong is ripe for abuse. This is because asserting one's Constitutional rights will always "delay" the police in discharging their duties. It is irrefragable that demanding the government obtain a warrant before they search the inside of your home "delays" the police in their duties. Likewise with refusing to answer questions or asking to confer with your lawyer during an interrogation. Too often police, as the officer here testified, believe it is a crime to do anything which "makes our job harder".
This panel disagrees, thankfully.
No comments:
Post a Comment