Giving the finger to money making radar traps

John Swartz, May 2006, gives the finger to law enforcement while
being a passenger in a car in a rural part of upstate New York.

Cop arrests him on a charge of disorderly conduct.
He filed a civil rights lawsuit.
A lower court judge dismissed the case.

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in Manhattan reversed that decision.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decision...1-2846_opn.pdf

On 04 Jan 2013 03:49:29 GMT, Eric Prilovich wrote:

> John Swartz, May 2006, gives the finger to law enforcement while
> being a passenger in a car in a rural part of upstate New York.
>
> Cop arrests him on a charge of disorderly conduct.
> He filed a civil rights lawsuit.
> A lower court judge dismissed the case.
>
> Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
> Circuit in Manhattan reversed that decision.
> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decision...1-2846_opn.pdf

You fail to understand the meaning of the decision.
The appeals court vacated the ruling of the lower court.
Meaning, the plaintiffs won their case.

SCOTUS has already ruled that "flipping the bird" is legal and protected
free speech. Look it up.
Ergo, the officer had no probable cause to stop the vehicle.
As the vehicle was already stopped when the officer came upon it, the
passengers were outside of it, the officer "seized" the persons by ordering
them to sit in the vehicle. See Terry Vs Ohio.
The judges further ruled that the DO charges were invalid because there was
no action that met the conditions of the statute.
The offficer filed a complaint, AFTER the incident which initiated fourth
amendment violations.

You should have read the decision before jumping to your conclusion.

On 1/3/13 10:56 PM, richard wrote:
> On 04 Jan 2013 03:49:29 GMT, Eric Prilovich wrote:
>
>> John Swartz, May 2006, gives the finger to law enforcement while
>> being a passenger in a car in a rural part of upstate New York.
>>
>> Cop arrests him on a charge of disorderly conduct.
>> He filed a civil rights lawsuit.
>> A lower court judge dismissed the case.
>>
>> Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
>> Circuit in Manhattan reversed that decision.
>> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decision...1-2846_opn.pdf
>
> You fail to understand the meaning of the decision.

Or you did. Which is more likely?

> The appeals court vacated the ruling of the lower court.
> Meaning, the plaintiffs won their case.

There are two "cases" here. The first is the plaintiff's suit for
wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution. The second is the
plaintiff's appeal of the district court's dismissal of the first case.
The plaintiff won the second case, which means the district court must
hear his first case.
>
> SCOTUS has already ruled that "flipping the bird" is legal and protected
> free speech. Look it up.
> Ergo, the officer had no probable cause to stop the vehicle.
> As the vehicle was already stopped when the officer came upon it, the
> passengers were outside of it, the officer "seized" the persons by ordering
> them to sit in the vehicle. See Terry Vs Ohio.
> The judges further ruled that the DO charges were invalid because there was
> no action that met the conditions of the statute.

Sure enough, it's you who doesn't understand. The defendants moved for
summary dismissal. They, as the moving parties, are entitled to a
dismissal if the judge finds they have a winning case considering the
facts taken in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, i.e., the
plaintff. That is, the judge has to consider the dismissal assuming
that the plaintiff's version of the facts obtains.

The district court dismissed the case, and the appeals court overturned
that decision saying that the disorderly conduct charges were invalid,
assuming that the plaintiff's version of events is true. The case will
be returned to the district court, which will try the case. A jury will
decide which version of events is correct, and then decide whether that
version of events is consistent with a disorderly conduct charge.

> The offficer filed a complaint, AFTER the incident which initiated fourth
> amendment violations.

No, there's a question of whether a fourth-amendment seizure happened.
This is required for a successful malicious prosecution suit. The
appeals court noted that there two such seizures -- an order to the
plaintiff to return to and re-enter his car and the subsequent court
hearings the plaintiff was obliged to attend. But these facts aren't in
dispute.

> You should have read the decision before jumping to your conclusion.

What an ignoramus you are.

Eric Prilovich wrote:
> John Swartz, May 2006, gives the finger to law enforcement while
> being a passenger in a car in a rural part of upstate New York.
>
> Cop arrests him on a charge of disorderly conduct.
> He filed a civil rights lawsuit.
> A lower court judge dismissed the case.
>
> Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
> Circuit in Manhattan reversed that decision.
> http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decision...1-2846_opn.pdf

Tsk, tsk.... All that trouble and expense for such a simple thing... How
many bank robberies took place while all this was going on? Are you libs
happy to have your tax dollars wasted in this way? Oh, that's right. A lot
of you are lawyers, so you are the ones who are profiting from it all....