Police citation over sign leads to federal lawsuit

[normanvin]

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Poli...7-31-2009.html

July 31
Police citation over sign leads to federal lawsuit
Hughestown man is seeking economic and punitive damages from borough.

By Steve Mocarsky smocarsky@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

SCRANTON – A Hughestown man who was cited with disorderly conduct after displaying a sign in his pickup’s rear window using the f-word is suing the borough, the police officer who cited him and other borough officials.


According to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Scranton, Joseph Decker says he suffered an attempted knife attack, vandalism and harassment as a result of the citation, causing him financial loss and mental anguish.

He’s seeking economic, non-economic, special and punitive damages to be determined at a jury trial, as well as costs, expenses, attorney fees and other relief the court deems just and equitable.

According to the suit, Decker on Nov. 11 received a non-traffic citation for disorderly conduct issued by Patrolman Robert Leombruni because of a sign on Decker’s truck that read: “If your (sic) in America and can’t speak English, get the (expletive) out!”

Although the charge was withdrawn on Jan. 26, the issuance of the citation violated Decker’s constitutional rights in regulating/restricting his protected speech, the complaint states. It goes on to assert the sign was not obscene and did not fall under other categories of unprotected speech.

“The citation also fueled a number of retaliatory acts by the public against Mr. Decker and caused him and his family great cost and distress,” the complaint states.

In addition to spending time conducting a legal defense, Decker sustained damage to his vehicle, including a shattered rear window, slashed tires, a creased bumper, a broken mirror and scratches and dents, the complaint alleges.

Also, as a proximate result of the issuance of the citation, Decker suffered an attempted knife attack by a woman and was forced to install security lights on his house and change his phone number to prevent such further acts and harassment and to ensure the protection of his family, the complaint states.

Named as defendants, in addition to Leombruni and the borough, are Hughestown Police Chief Stephen Golya and Mayor Paul Hindmarsh.

Decker’s attorney, Tullio DeLuca, of Scranton, did not return a call seeking comment. Neither did Golya or Leombruni.

Hindmarsh said he doesn’t think the retaliatory acts cited in Decker’s complaint were related to the citation.

“I think it was a personal issue he had with his neighbors, to the best of my knowledge,” he said.

And Hindmarsh said he still believes the sign was inappropriate for display in an area near the Pittston Area elementary and middle schools.

“To go ahead and advertise it on your truck, it was a poor choice of words. Evidently, he must have felt the same way or he wouldn’t have changed the lettering. … Shortly after we talked with him and issued the citation and the neighbors started complaining, he changed the lettering on the sign,” Hindmarsh said.

Decker had reworded the sign to correct the grammar and replace the expletive with symbols prior to the disorderly conduct charge being withdrawn.

Mary Catherine Roper, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said it’s “quite clear that he (Decker) had a right to have that sign on his truck and quite clear he shouldn’t have been cited for it.”

Roper said the most famous case that supports Decker’s claim is Cohen v. California, which was ultimately decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1968, during the Vietnam War, 19-year-old Paul Robert Cohen wore a jacket bearing the words “(Expletive) the draft” while inside the Los Angeles Courthouse and was arrested and convicted of disturbing the peace by offensive conduct.

“The U.S. Supreme Court said always, but especially when you’re commenting on political issues, people are not required to be gentile or polite or even refrain from profanity in expressing their political views,” Roper said.

[JP8]

Occasionally the ACLU has the right idea. Though, the truth is, a lot of people on this forum had great-grandparents who never really learned to speak proper English. Their kids learned the foreign language at home and American English at school.

I think Decker's sign would have made more sense had it read "If you're a Liberal pandering to foreigners or a businessman trying to undercut American costs and forgo the English language in the process, get the fuck out!"

That would make more sense to me

[Kimba]

Occasionally the ACLU has the right idea. Though, the truth is, a lot of people on this forum had great-grandparents who never really learned to speak proper English. Their kids learned the foreign language at home and American English at school.

I think Decker's sign would have made more sense had it read "If you're a Liberal pandering to foreigners or a businessman trying to undercut American costs and forgo the English language in the process, get the fuck out!"

That would make more sense to me

The difference is that they at least tried to learn English. We didn't' have to press 1 for English, 2 for German, 3 for Italian,.....

Back then, when immigrants came to America, they tried to assimilate.

I had a neighbor from Germany. Did she ever get it 100% correct, no, but she tried.

I went to school with a Japanese family. The first thing the parents did was to try to learn the language so they in turn could teach their children so they could be better Americans.

They new influx of immigrants have a sense of entitlement that goes against what the older generations of immigrants believed in. They came to America for it's opportunities for a better life without losing their culture. Now Americans are expected to forgo all that made America what she is & adapt to their culture at the risk of losing what Americans have strived to achieve.

I have to agree with his sign. Learn English or get the FUCK out.

[whoshisface]

The first only protects offensive speach. I don't understand why that gets confusing to people. if the speach isn't offensive then why would it need to be protected!

The guy can sue for the citation.

However I don't see how he can sue for what other people did.

I'm confused. Did the cop trash his truck? I'm assuming he's claiming that except for the illegal case made against him his name wouldn't have been made public? well sir that's the price for free speach and if you catch those doing it they will be in trouble but are the police trully to blame? maybe.

[JP8]

They new influx of immigrants have a sense of entitlement that goes against what the older generations of immigrants believed in. They came to America for it's opportunities for a better life without losing their culture. Now Americans are expected to forgo all that made America what she is & adapt to their culture at the risk of losing what Americans have strived to achieve.

I have to agree with his sign. Learn English or get the FUCK out.

I agree with most of what you wrote however the immigrants did not create this environment. The root cause is natural born AMERICANS created and allow this environment to flourish. That is why I put my 2 cents into "revising" the sign and targeting the root fundamental cause of which you speak.

Am I gonna blame the new immigrant who does not want to learn English, or the Americans who encouraged the immigrant to come here and not learn English.

[Kimba]

I agree with most of what you wrote however the immigrants did not create this environment. The root cause is natural born AMERICANS created and allow this environment to flourish. That is why I put my 2 cents into "revising" the sign and targeting the root fundamental cause of which you speak.

Am I gonna blame the new immigrant who does not want to learn English, or the Americans who encouraged the immigrant to come here and not learn English.

Valid points.

[pirateron]

Regardless of ones views or opinion, a persons right to free speech is what is in question here, not whether it is a valid point or not or if it offended someone or not. If you agree with his statement, or feel it needs tweaked a little or completely think he's off his rocker, you still need to realize and respect his right to say it.

The cop needs reeducated on the Constitution. The department needs to pay some restitution, how much, well, that's up to the court. But if you hire incompetant people, you are responsible for their actions.

[JP8]

Regardless of ones views or opinion, a persons right to free speech is what is in question here, not whether it is a valid point or not or if it offended someone or not. If you agree with his statement, or feel it needs tweaked a little or completely think he's off his rocker, you still need to realize and respect his right to say it.

The cop needs reeducated on the Constitution. The department needs to pay some restitution, how much, well, that's up to the court. But if you hire incompetant people, you are responsible for their actions.

I agree completely. I'm also getting tired of these people who advocate war, abortion, non-abortion or any other meaningful thing but are offended by mere verbs and adjectives.

The fact remains though. As I pointed out a couple of days ago and in a couple of threads over the years, Disorderly Conduct is a CATCH ALL charge.
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly
conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance
or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or
tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture;
or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive
condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of
the actor.

That line right there covers about 90% of the actions of any normal person's daily routine.

[pirateron]

The fact remains though. As I pointed out a couple of days ago and in a couple of threads over the years, Disorderly Conduct is a CATCH ALL charge.
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly
conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance
or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or
tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive
condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of
the actor.

That line right there covers about 90% of the actions of any normal person's daily routine.

Funny how the Supreme Court sees things differently from local "laws"

the most famous case that supports Decker’s claim is Cohen v. California, which was ultimately decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1968, during the Vietnam War, 19-year-old Paul Robert Cohen wore a jacket bearing the words “(Expletive) the draft” while inside the Los Angeles Courthouse and was arrested and convicted of disturbing the peace by offensive conduct.

“The U.S. Supreme Court said always, but especially when you’re commenting on political issues, people are not required to be gentile or polite or even refrain from profanity in expressing their political views,” Roper said.

Seems to me, if I'm arrested for walking down the street yelling "Fuck Obama" over and over, that I would have solid grounds for a lawsuit against Barney Fife and his cohorts..

[JP8]

Funny how the Supreme Court sees things differently from local "laws"

Seems to me, if I'm arrested for walking down the street yelling "Fuck Obama" over and over, that I would have solid grounds for a lawsuit against Barney Fife and his cohorts..

If you have the money for the lawyers go for it. The problem is, most people don't. And the citation fee schedule seems to be set up in a fashion that most people will just pay the fine and be on their way...rather than fight it.