Iowa Man Files Lawsuit After Being Arrested Twice for Criticizing the Police at a Public Meeting
"Ironically, the actions of the police department have only proven my point," Noah Petersen said after being handcuffed, arrested, and jailed for his speech.

Officials in a small Iowa town twice arrested a young man for criticizing the police department and saying it violates people's civil rights. Now the town is facing a lawsuit for violating his civil rights.
In a federal lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Iowa, Noah Petersen says the town of Newton violated the First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments when the police chief arrested him for speaking during the public comment period of a City Council meeting. Petersen is represented by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm.
"The mayor and police chief had Noah arrested, jailed, strip-searched, and criminally prosecuted simply because they didn't like what Noah had to say," the lawsuit states. "This suit is filed to vindicate the fundamental right to criticize the government without fear of retaliation and to ensure the constitutional accountability of all government officials."
Petersen was prompted to speak at an October 3, 2022, Newton City Council meeting after the release of body cam footage showing Newton officers arresting a college football player, Tayvin Galanakis. Galanakis was arrested for driving under the influence, despite blowing a 0.00 on a Breathalyzer and passing roadside sobriety tests. He was taken to the police station for further drug tests, all of which came back negative, before eventually being released.
Petersen approached the microphone and said:
Hello. This is my public comment for [the] City Council meeting, now October 3rd, 2022. Defund Newton Police Department. They are a violent, civil and human rights–violating organization who do not make your community safer. They are also pro–domestic abuse because they are currently employing a domestic abuser and choosing to not release the records about that domestic abuser.
At that point, the Newton mayor ordered Petersen to stop speaking, although his allotted three minutes of time had not expired. When Petersen refused, the mayor ordered the police chief to remove Petersen for violating a council rule forbidding "derogatory statements or comments about any individual."
Petersen was handcuffed, arrested, and jailed until his parents could post bond for him. He returned to the next City Council meeting to speak during the public comment period and was once again arrested after calling the police chief and mayor fascists.
Petersen was charged both times with disorderly conduct for disrupting a lawful assembly. However, as Reason's Emma Camp reported in February, those charges did not stick:
Last Wednesday, Petersen was found not guilty of his disorderly conduct charge. Adding to his victory, the judge overturned the rule barring "derogatory" statements about individuals during city council meetings. "As applied in this particular instance, the Newton City Council rule is violative of the First Amendment," the verdict states.
Petersen "did not act in any objectively unreasonable manner," the judge added. "He read a prepared statement relating to the basic city service of policing. While some may not agree with the content of his comments, the Court finds the statements made were not 'derogatory,' nor about an 'individual.' In the event the statements could be found 'derogatory' or a comment about an 'individual'…the Court finds these terms vague and overbroad."
Petersen says the entire mess shows why he stepped up to the podium in the first place.
"Ironically, the actions of the police department have only proven my point," Petersen said in an Institute for Justice press release. "My initial criticism was about the way they treat citizens in our community. They arrested me for exercising my right to free speech—for standing up for what I believe is right. Their reaction to my criticism was a clear demonstration of the very issue I was trying to highlight. Their actions underscore the urgent need for the very reforms I was advocating for."
Newton officials simply do not appear to take criticism well. As Reason's Emma Camp reported earlier this month, the two Newton police officers who arrested Galanakis have since filed a defamation suit against him for publishing the body cam footage of his own arrest, as well as claims he made about the officers on social media. A judge tossed out most of those defamation claims.
The right to criticize police, even through vulgarities and rude gestures, is firmly enshrined in the First Amendment. As Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in 1987, in a ruling striking down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to oppose or interrupt a police officer, "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."
Peterson's lawsuit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as a judgment declaring Newton's "derogatory comments" rule unconstitutional.
"By ordering their opponents arrested, Newton's officials behaved like petty dictators in a banana republic, rather than democratically-elected leaders in a constitutional republic," Institute for Justice attorney Brian Morris said. "Anyone with a high school diploma should know that having your political opponents arrested is a textbook example of violating someone's First Amendment rights and we're confident that the courts will agree."
Attorneys for the town of Newton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
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
See what happens if you try to read a children's book in front of the city council.
Ignoring the nude web-cammers above seeking further recruits, it seems this young man has found a way to pile up stacks of money without having to take his clothes off or lope his mule on camera.
I hope he gets a big stack!
Unless the mayor and police chief face personal repercussions for this, they're going to the same thing to their next critic.
They win because the process doesn't hurt them, while their critic gets run through the meat grinder.
The process is the punishment.
Exactly. Sometimes life changing.
Well said.
I can't believe this man's restraint.
Sure seems like the problem is him calling a cop a domestic abuser. Is that actually the case or did the guy just make up lies about the cop?
Only 1 in 3 cops have abused a woman.
Google says 40%. Look it up.
And that doesn't count what is never reported or swept under the rug by friendly prosecutors and judges.
So in reality it’s probably half to two thirds.
It being a fact only makes them more butthurt.
The greater the truth, the greater the libel.
So only 1/3 more cops than college students?
Never named the cop at the meeting.
If the reporting is to be believed, he didn’t say WHO the officer was, just that one of them was a domestic abuser. That’s not a derogatory statement about an individual seeing as how no individual was named.
A statement can be derogatory to an individual of it identifies him or her by means other than naming him or her, but Petersen's statement did not identify the supposed domestic abuser except by what he or she did. (This comment would have been easier to write if Petersen had at least clarified that police officer's pronouns!)
Initially, I was sympathetic to the unnecessary jailing and strip search, but the more I think about it, the more I'm actually to the point that I'm as indifferent to this tard's outcome as if Jackie Coakley had come in and told her rape story to the City Council.
First, Galanakis already accused them of domestic abuse and is facing a civil suit for it. It's not clear whether Petersen is/was aware of that but the fact remains that we have two accusations just like all the sexual abuse allegations against Trump, Kavanaugh, etc. Remember the tidal wave of trolls waiting to unleash nuisance lawsuits and bring down the internet that S230 was supposed to prevent? Yeah.
Second, even at their word, do we now have two witnesses to domestic abuse and *zero* litigation with regard to the abuse itself? Why are the witnesses calling out the police and the city council in public directly and not through their lawyers? Or is there actually zero domestic abuse which is why nobody seems to give a shit about getting testimony, preserving or tainting evidence, or biasing juries?
Third, there's nothing in the 1A that says a/the City council has to provide you a vocal platform, on camera, in city hall, in person with full consideration of any/all open comments. Unless Petersen or the IJ is running some sort of counter campaign to get the Mayor and the Police voted out, this BLM/Antifa/CHAZ/Heckler's Veto/Peacocking/Sea lioning stunt is just going to result in the City going to public-as-witness, written commentary, yay/nay, or other, more efficient and less disruptive public input format with the same Mayor and the same officer in place... and, oh yeah, no one uncharged for any domestic abuse they supposedly committed.
Honestly, it's a bit astounding the number of libertarians who've seen the crooked cops accuse the victim, who've seen the activists walk into business or a lecture hall and not just shout down anyone and everyone but destructively and even violently disrupt the shit out of everything and then shout "Free Speech!" when the police or security show up, who've seen the false rape accusations and will, with 10,000% seriousness tell you "Call your lawyer, then the cops, right away. Don't talk to anyone but your lawyer." saying "This guy's a genius! A hero! for foregoing a lawyer and going straight to Twitter and the City Council with his allegations of a crime.". Like Reason hasn't, for decades waffled between "too local" and "OMG, democracy ends if a Newspaper in Podunk, AK shuts down!" Like even the LP's Nominee for President hasn't said "I Think We Should Support the [BLM] Protesters." falling for *exactly* this kind of bullshit.
The first time he was arrested, he didn't say anything about the domestic abuse.
All that typing for nothing......
Only m.c knows the true libertarian way, and that way involves sucking more cop than the FOP. There is absolutely no abuse of power they can't justify.
For those with an IQ lower than your average police offier's; in order, as presented:
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? Maybe some more training and you'll get it.
The cops has a PFA order against him. But the problem is that the kid never mentioned the cop the first time he was arrested.
You do realize you can't have it both ways, right? If the kid didn't name the person, you can't know he's referring to a/the PFA and if you know the kid is referring to a/the specific PFA then he, by your own statements, uniquely identified and defamed an individual.
Go ahead, criticize the Mayor and the City Council for being underhanded in circumventing the law.
Words and ideas are dangerous.
"I'm here to talk crap about the police"
*gets arrested and hauled away*
Next day at City Hall, " So anyways, like I was saying... "
This kid has moxie. I approve.
Noah: "...we're confident the courts will agree." (that I my rights were denied). This has been adjudicated in Noah's favor. Therefore, the courts have already agreed. So why is it necessary to go back to court? Why can't the court rule on Noah's suit for damages without a new trial? When he was released, the police were ipso facto guilty.
This has been adjudicated in Noah’s favor. Therefore, the courts have already agreed.
Pretty sure that just means the charges were dismissed in criminal court. Dismissal doesn't penalize the police or the mayor. And they knew the charges would be dismissed. They don't care because the process is the punishment.
So why is it necessary to go back to court?
Because it's a different court. Civil court. And again the police and mayor don't give a fuck because they taxpayers will pay the bill.
Next time someone gets mouthy in a public meeting, they'll have the person arrested and the same process will occur. Their victim will be punished by going through the process of being arrested and such, and in the end the taxpayers pay.
Evil triumphs once again.
Until some AUSA grows some balls and starts prosecuting people like the mayor and police chief under 18 USC 241 242 and send them to FCI Poundmeintheass, this will continue no matter how high the monetary damages awarded.
Do you really not know and understand the difference and longstanding historical motivations between criminal and civil court?
You are a libertarian, right? Did you fall off the turnip truck and land on your head yesterday?
Once home of Maytag ( now windmills I think). I only travel past Newtown on I80. The guy kind of got his point proved. This bad reaction to honest criticism must stop. Now contrast to the crap that came out of the Saint George movement.
A judge tossed out most of those defamation claims.
Fucking LOL. Having learned nothing about the public’s hatred of the media from a summer of reporting on “mostly peaceful protesting” C.J. doubles down. “Close enough is for horseshoes, hand grenades, government work, and C.J. Ciaramella’s reporting.”
Why strive to be better than the shitty, dishonest authoritarians you’re trying to depose when you can be just as bad or worse?
Edit: "Noah Peters*e*n... Peters*o*n's lawsuit". Fucking amateurs, LOL.
Anyone with a high school diploma should know that having your political opponents
Uh, I’m no big fancy Institute for Justice lawyer, but I do have a H.S. diploma and I’m just wondering, because it’s not really stated in the story anywhere, is Petersen (or Peterson, whichever) actually a political opponent as he’s running for or holds office or is he just a critic and/or activist? Not that it makes no nevermind to the 1A, just that, when it comes to defamation, libel, and civil suits a lawyer making such a stupid mistake would seem… stupid.
Unless, of course, Petersen is running for office…
A political opponent is anyone who publicly advocates for policies in opposition to one’s own, not necessarily a candidate for office. In this case, Petersen was criticizing the town’s government and police policies, and the two-bit mayor couldn’t stand one bit of criticism.
So my saying you're wrong publicly makes me your political opponent.
And here I thought the Progressives were the evil ones who were trying to politicize everything.
No, you're only a political opponent if what you're arguing about involves the government.
Sounds to me like you need to take your issue up with Michael P. I'm just working off the definition he gave me.
If we go with my definition, anyone unable to best you in the realm of the specific context isn't an opponent. The fans may oppose the visiting team, they may oppose the refs, they may even oppose their own teams coaching or ownership, but, as they can't legitimately best any/all, they are not opponents.
Petersen may be the Mayor's legal opposition but, as indicated, the Mayor can lose the legal contest and can, and even very possibly will, still maintain and/or win politically.
City Council and the Mayor are political jobs. If you have a dispute about the running of those political jobs, you having a political dispute.
Pretty simple.
Pretty sure you wouldn't understand "Pretty simple." if someone laid it out for you any better than the officers you hate.
A dispute doesn't de facto make you a broad opponent in every conception, much less a viable one.
It's hilarious how far you morons will go to torture the law and even the English language to indulge your deluded fantasies.
Opponent strongly suggests someone who's engaged in a contest they can win. Petersen might be a legal opponent but, as indicated, even if he wins the legal battle, that in no way implicates anything with regard to any political contests or battles.
Buffalo Hat putting his feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk doesn't necessarily make him Joe Biden's political opponent. Especially if, rightly or wrongly, he gets convicted first.
Land of the free is a lie. But I guess he only has to suffer the process and be harrassed instead of being killed or poisoned.
Enjoy Your Beatiful Moment with the Lonly Ladies By joining CallBoy Job. All type of CallBoys can join CallBoy Service in amberpet using axindia
call boy jobs amberpet
This is a fight he won't win.
> "They are also pro–domestic abuse because they are currently employing a domestic abuser and choosing to not release the records about that domestic abuser."
That sentence should have started, "I have brought with me hard evidence that..."
Otherwise he's just hurling unsubstantiated accusations. That goes a far leap beyond mere criticism.
I'm all for criticizing the police (or anyone else, especially working for the State), and doing so publicly. But don't expect a pat on the head and a badge that says "First Amendment Champion" when all you're doing is mudslinging from a microphone.
The back story seems to be that one of the officers who arrested Tayvin Galanakis was the subject of a thrice-extended domestic violence restraining order that a court issued to protect the officer's ex. Galanakis described this as a "conviction", and that is a surviving part of the officers' defamation lawsuit against Galanakis.
https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/10/02/after-traffic-stop-video-goes-viral-newton-police-sue-citizen-for-defamation/
Aha! So the judge is in on the same crooked political conspiracy too!
At this rate we’ll be able to prove Trump sexually abused E. Jean Caroll and #defundThePolice (He said the thing!) before the next election too!
The first time he was arrested, he didn't say anything about the office or the abuse. So your point is moot.
And considering the city has already removed the "no criticism" rule, I'd say he's already won.
The first time he was arrested, he didn’t say anything about the office or the abuse. So your point is moot.
You've said this twice now and the article flatly states otherwise.
Again, you're every bit as stupid and crooked as the cops you're arguing against. You're doing a great job of taking a case of "They clearly shouldn't have jailed and searched him." and turning it into "Everyone is assholes."
Have you watched the video?
I have.
Shouldn't you have watched the video especially since you called out the author for being a bad writer????
You do realize there are two videos, (three if you include Galanakis’ video) right? That he literally says the date in the first video where he invokes domestic abuse and then clearly calls the Mayor and the Chief of Police fascists, after the first arrest, in the second video, right? That anyone can find the video*s* online with the facts and timeline clearly laid out in opposition to your false claims?
Are you capable of *not* doubling and tripling down on your stupidity?
Hi Are you looking for jobs join our agency axindia
https://axindia.in/
A brown essentials hoodie is a versatile and stylish addition to any wardrobe. This comfortable and minimalist garment offers a perfect balance between coziness and modern aesthetics. Crafted from soft and durable materials, it complements a wide range of outfits, making it an essential piece for those who appreciate both comfort and timeless fashion. Whether you're lounging at home or out and about, the brown essentials hoodie is a go-to choice for a classic and effortless look.
Visit Our Store: https://essentialshoodie.us/brown-essentials-hoodie/
I'm not aware of a specific "Spider Hoodie 555" as of my last knowledge update in September 2021. It's possible that this is a product that has been released or gained popularity after that date. If you could provide more details or context about the "Spider Hoodie 555," I'd be happy to provide more information or discuss its significance.
Visit Our Store: https://sp5derhoodie.llc/hoodie/
Vlone is a streetwear fashion brand and collective that was founded by A$AP Bari (whose real name is Jabari Shelton) in 2011. It gained prominence through its association with the hip-hop collective A$AP Mob, which includes artists like A$AP Rocky and A$AP Ferg. Vlone is known for its distinctive V-shaped logo and bold designs, often featuring the Vlone branding prominently on clothing, such as hoodies, t-shirts, and accessories.
Visit Our Store: https://vlone.biz/
"Anyone with a high school diploma should know that having your political opponents arrested is a textbook example of violating someone's First Amendment rights and we're confident that the courts will agree."
Joe Biden disagrees.
This is *not* a free speech case. He was removed for violating the rules and decorum which had been established by the City Council. Same thing as if your spouse says "don't talk to me before I've had my first cup of coffee". A rule has been established, and it would have been quite easy for the man shown above to make his point without inflammatory and irrelevant statements.
Yessir. May I have another, please?
I have received $19734 last month by working 0nline from home in my spare time. I am a full time college student and just doing this easy home based j0b for 3 to 4 hrs a day. This j0b is easy to do and its earnings are awesome. Every peraon can now start making easy cash right now by just follow details here......
https://www.dailypro7.com
It is most definitely a first amendment issue. The rule that council enacted was blatantly unconstitutional.
No it’s not. There certainly is some ambiguity and, specifically a case to be had that they interpreted it liberally, but the idea that the City is obligated to give platform to defamatory speech *against anyone*, which the rule specifically forbids, is retarded.
As indicated, even if they lose, they’ll just move to have comments written out and shared ahead of time or other more closed and asynchronous format like any one of dozens, if not hundreds, of municipalities across the country.
The 1A says "Congress shall make no law..." There's nothing in the 1A that says every government official at any/every level has to respect your 3 min. of Festivus-style airing of grievances anywhere and everywhere you choose.
Brilliant, so Congress can pass a law saying it's illegal to break rules, then enact a rule saying you can't criticize Congress. Then when you criticize Congress and get arrested, it's not because a law they passed violates the First Amendment, it's because you broke a rule that triggered a law that says nothing about speech.
JFC
The point is that they can do it, but the people have redress thru the courts. Which is exactly why the IJ saw it necessary to take this case. The more case law against this kind of thing, the better.
WHERE IS THE DAMNED FBI? This is EXACTLY what congress has ordered the FBI to investigate and to make arrests about. The FBI is supposed to be policing government actors and police. They are supposed to investigate and arrest. The FEDERAL PROSECUTOR is supposed to prosecute and a FEDERAL JURY convict and a Federal Judge Sentence. The MINIMUM is ONE YEAR in prison per incident.
The Maximum is 5 years in this case for the officer. Since this town has a HISTORY now of police not understanding State or Federal Law and of violating civil rights, the FBI SHOULD BE MAKING ARRESTS AS WE SPEAK. The FBI is WORTHLESS criminal organization more worried about it political power than their charter.
While the rule is obvious nonsense, and the arrests unconstitutional, I do have to say that the judge's determination that the kid's comments were not...
about an 'individual.
...seems incorrect to me. While he did not identify the individual to whom he was referring, his claim that the police department is...
...currently employing a domestic abuser and choosing to not release the records about that domestic abuser
...clearly refers to an individual. We don't know who that individual is, but the rule, as written, does not require that identification.
Earn money in USA, high scores from trusted resources. Work at your own pace. Regular Payments. Search in different job categories. Work anywhere on your vs03 computer, laptop or mobile phone. Update your profile at any time.
.
.
Detail Here———->>> http://Www.Smartcash1.com
Did Republican loser Donald Trump violate the peaceful transfer of power? — Quinn Mitchell