Appeals Court Rules Ohio Cops Didn't Have Cause To Arrest Man Wearing 'Fuck the Police' Shirt
The sheriff's deputies are also not entitled to qualified immunity because the First Amendment right to offend police has been repeatedly upheld.

Sheriff's deputies in Ohio didn't have probable cause to arrest a man for hurling vulgarities at them and wearing a t-shirt that said "fuck the police," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled Tuesday.
The Sixth Circuit found Michael Wood had a First Amendment right to cuss out a gaggle of deputies who removed him from a county fair in 2016 after someone called 911 to complain about his shirt. The deputies also are not entitled to qualified immunity from Wood's suit, the Sixth Circuit ruled, because Wood's right to be free from arrest was clearly established by a long line of court opinions protecting obscene language directed at authorities.
"The Sixth Circuit got this one right, and we're very pleased with the result," says David Carey, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of Wood. "The ruling removes any doubt that criticism of police and their actions—even coarse and profane criticism—falls under the core protections of the First Amendment, and cannot be a lawful basis for an arrest on its own."
According to court documents, Wood wore the shirt to the Clark County Fair on a July day in 2016 because of past unpleasant interactions with the Clark County Sheriff's Office, which he believed was "a cesspool." (His opinion has likely not changed.)
After a fair patron complained, several Clark County Sheriff's deputies and the fair's executive director confronted Wood and ordered him to leave. Wood agreed to go, and as he headed toward the exit he berated the director and officers.
"One, two, three, four, five, six motherfuckers. Six bitch-ass fucking pigs," Wood said, counting the number of deputies escorting him to the fair exit. "Fucking thugs with guns that don't uphold the United States Constitution. Fuck all you. You dirty rat bastards."
Wood demanded to leave through the back gate of the fair, despite the deputies' insistence that they would only escort him to the front gate. ("Then that's your fucking fat-ass problems, motherfucker, I'm leaving.") As Wood continued walking toward the exit and arguing with the fair director, the deputies debated among themselves if they could arrest him and what for.
They eventually arrested Wood and charged him with disorderly conduct and obstruction. Prosecutors later dismissed both charges. Wood filed a civil rights lawsuit against all six sheriff's deputies, alleging false arrest and violations of his First Amendment rights.
The deputies argued that Wood's arrest was lawful under the "fighting words" doctrine established by the Supreme Court's 1942 ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. That doctrine still lives on, but its application has been significantly limited over the decades.
A U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Clark County sheriff's deputies, ruling that Woods' speech was not protected under Ohio state courts' broader reading of Chaplinsky.
The Sixth Circuit, however, reversed that order, finding Ohio's interpretation of the fighting words doctrine incongruent with federal precedent and noting that, while Wood's speech was profane, it did not create a recipe for immediate violence.
Carey says that upholding the lower court ruling would have had "very disturbing implications—essentially creating a 'race to the bottom' situation, where police could disregard First Amendment protections that have been clearly established in federal court, as long as they could find a state court case that had been less protective of free speech."
There's a wide body of federal case law upholding the First Amendment right to flip off or otherwise offend police officers. In 1987, the Supreme Court struck down a Houston ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers, declaring that "the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."
The Sixth Circuit opinion in Wood's case notes that it previously ruled in 2002 that a Grand Rapids man had a constitutionally protected right to call an officer an "asshole," and ruled in 2016 that saying "fuck the police" didn't rise to the level of "fighting words."
Despite clear guidance from courts, police around the country still mete out illegal arrests and tickets to people who hurt their feelings. For example, last year a 19-year-old Utah woman was charged with a hate crime for allegedly stomping on a "Back the Blue" sign in front of a police officer.
Also last year, Tennessee police arrested and charged a man, who has since filed a First Amendment lawsuit, with harassment for posting a doctored photo online of two men urinating on a dead police officer's grave. A judge dismissed the harassment charge.
An Iowa man won a lawsuit in 2019 after he was charged with third-degree harassment for posting online that a sheriff's deputy was a "stupid sum bitch" and "butthurt."
A Tennessee resident was arrested in 2017 after he wrote "Erin's police chief is a bitch" in white paint on the back of his car.
Wood's case now heads back to a U.S. District Court for further proceedings.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In his defence he claimed to be "coming straight from the underground." and maintained "the mother fuckers want him bad because he's loud"
Not the way I heard it go down. Maybe you got your news from the radio edit 😉
Actually I think he got his news from the Dope cover lol
Kevin caught it
"Fuck, this guy called us pigs and said we ignore the Constitution. What should we do?"
"Prove him right."
"Great idea!"
Show me a cop who cares about the Constitution and about the rights of the people they come into contact with, and I'll show you someone who is the laughing stock of the department.
You would think at this point, even the thickest cop would leave cases like this well alone. I can see, maybe, disorderly conduct. Cops, DAs love them slapping that on motherfuckers, but, it's like the social 'justice' 'warrior's' accusation of racism. Automatic and a stretch at most generous.
You would think at this point, even the thickest cop would leave cases like this well alone.
Why? It's called being arrested for POP. Pissing off the police. They do it all the time. Someone pisses them off so they arrest them on charges that they know will be dropped, drag it out so they can get a few hours of overtime, and for them nothing else happens. They get the satisfaction of putting someone through a traumatic experience and get paid extra to boot. Show me a cop who doesn't do this and I'll show you the most unpopular guy in the precinct.
Cops mostly deal with those of us who are powerless. If a cop raps you on the head with a nightstick, how many of us have the time and money to try to get something through the court system.
So, if 99 percent of the time you can act with near impunity, that last 1 percent is always going to catch you by surprise.
I don't like the defendant's public behavior as reported in the article, but of course the First Amendment is only really needed to protect offensive and controversial speech. It's nice to see the courts get one right occasionally.
Also "disorderly conduct" laws need to be struck down across the board because they always end up as "we don't like what this guy is doing but we can't figure out how to charge him with a real crime"
Bingo
Wood stumped police with this victory.
Fucking thugs with guns that don't uphold the United States Constitution.
Ok, which one of you guys is Michael Wood?
I’m Morning Wood … er, … Michael Wood!
Wood chips.
Wood's case now heads back to a U.S. District Court for further proceedings.
Awkward.
The ACLU is paying Mr. Wood's legal case. It looks like the taxpayers of Springfield, Ohio are paying to press the case to justify butt-hurt of the cops and prosecutors, particularly after losing the first appeal.
This has been going on for six years. The legal bills on either side are likely getting close to a million dollars.
I can't think a better reason to bring out the wood-chippers.
Can I start a petition to have Michael Wood have a recurring guest column at Reason?
I wood chip in to make that happen.
I'm filing a disorderly conduct complaint against Chumby for that obscene pun 😉
Should I branch out into other puns or am I just barking up the wrong tree?
Don't be such a beech, ashole.
Seems like you pine fir something else.
I sequoia did there.
Maybe something that is more poplar.
That wood be fern.
Saguaro y'all goin' ta' cedar odeo?
>>The deputies argued that Wood's arrest was lawful under the "fighting words" doctrine
state agents pulled into a fight by a t-shirt
He also could have been concealed carrying an invisible fire extinguisher!
if judge I would have chuckled at the deputies and ordered the immediate release of Wood from confinement.
Since when did pigs become so sensitive?
That ruling was a no brainer. It should have come much sooner. The lawsuit coming will probably be settled out of court, but I’d like to see it go to trial. It would break the cops financially and that will be righteous!
If it turns out that individuals are so sensitive to verbal “hurt”, then they should find another line of work, one where they are removed from contact with the public.
Stupid all around. Wood should realize that the pigs are the ones who will come to his rescue whether he deserves it or not when he calls 911, and the cops need to realize that they are not godinthefleshunabletodowrong. Let's dial it all down a bit and start behaving like adults? Hummmm? Maybe????
Frickin grow up!
Hey, lefty shits are willing to justify all sorts of cop actions:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Yep, cops are perfectly justified in the murder of an unarmed protester if that protester might have later done something a lefty shit like "JasonT20" finds objectionable.
Remember the handle "JasonT20"; that's the steaming pile of lefty shit who made this claim. He's more than happy to have unarmed people murdered so long as they don't agree with him.
Remember the handle "JasonT20"; he deserves every bit of your condemnation the next time the asshole shows up.
It's awesome they won't get qualified immunity. He needs to put them all in the poor house.
While I do not ascribe to the man’s opinions regarding the police, he certainly has a right to express them. Just like I can say the original version of Let's Go Brandon if I so choose. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gender. Welcomed to a free society.
Let's stop pretending like the ACLU is an authority on anything relating to civil liberties.
Maybe he just knows some good looking female cops?
Something is missing. He violated a 'dress code' and was upsetting to patrons and was asked to leave; he was clearly being disorderly and arrested for such and should have been arrested issued a bench ticket and fined. What does the shirt have to do with the actions taken by the police? Answer: Nothing.
If that is true, the story is patently dishonest.
Vile behavior towards anyone is unwelcome. A problem police face, is that while many are patriots, they are tasked with enforcing the laws of the land, and letting the courts be the judge. When they begin enforcing unconstitutional laws, then we have a problem, and not just the Left would turn against them. That is why many of us have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Are we willing to lose our wealth and livelihood to uphold the Constitution? The founders were cut from different cloth than many of the current crop of citizens.