Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Free Speech

He Was Strip-Searched and Jailed for Criticizing Cops. Now He's Fighting Back in Court.

In an apparent case of retaliation by humiliation, Jerry Rogers Jr. was arrested for speaking out about a stalled murder investigation.

Billy Binion | From the December 2023 issue

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Image of Jerry Rogers Jr. | Photo: Courtesy of Jerry Rogers Jr.
(Photo: Courtesy of Jerry Rogers Jr.)

In July 2017, Louisiana woman Nanette Krentel was shot in the head and left in a burning house. More than two years passed before anyone was arrested. That person, however, wasn't alleged to be the murderer. Rather, the sole arrest related to Krentel's death was that of Jerry Rogers Jr. His crime: criticizing the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office (STPSO) for its slow investigation of the case, which remains unsolved.

Naturally, Rogers sued the department for violating his rights. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that his lawsuit against Sheriff Randy Smith, Chief Danny Culpeper, and Sgt. Keith Canizaro may proceed, confirming they violated clearly established law when they punished Rogers for his speech.

In 2019, the STPSO caught wind that Rogers had denounced the lead investigator, Detective Daniel Buckner, whom Rogers characterized in an email as "clueless." To pore over his messages, the police obtained what was likely an illegal search warrant, as it listed the qualifying offense as "14:00000," which does not exist.

Police then arrested, strip-searched, and detained Rogers. He was ultimately released on bond, and the Louisiana Department of Justice declined to prosecute the case. But the primary goal was likely retaliation by humiliation: Before Rogers was booked, the cops publicized a press release about his arrest. Canizaro testified that this was the only time he could remember the office following that order of operations. They also filed a formal complaint with Rogers' employer, another action that Canizaro said the STPSO had never taken.

Lawyers with the district attorney's office told police it would be unconstitutional to use Louisiana's criminal defamation statute to arrest Rogers; the statutory language protecting public officials from criticism was rendered unconstitutional decades ago. Despite this warning from prosecutors, officers not only forged ahead with the arrest, they also sought qualified immunity when Rogers sued. This required them to attest that no reasonable officer could have known that what they were doing was unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit rejected their argument, and its ruling buttresses the notion that victims are entitled to recourse when the government retaliates against their speech.

But that recourse is not a guarantee. Priscilla Villarreal, a journalist in Laredo, Texas, was jailed in 2017 for her reporting. The government cited an obscure Texas law that makes it illegal to seek nonpublic information from a civil servant if the seeker has an "intent to obtain a benefit." The benefit, the police said, was that Villarreal could gain more Facebook followers. Judges in the 5th Circuit have ping-ponged back and forth on whether or not the arrest was unconstitutional.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to criticize police. The ability to exercise that right should not depend on how many Facebook followers someone stands to gain or how fraught their relationship is with local law enforcement.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Photo: Ready for RoboCop?

Billy Binion is a reporter at Reason.

Free SpeechCivil LibertiesFirst AmendmentLouisianaPoliceLaw enforcementCriminal Justice
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (32)

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.

  1. TwilaMiller   2 years ago (edited)

    I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
    Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com

  2. Longtobefree   2 years ago

    "The First Amendment guarantees the right to criticize police."

    The second amendment "guarantees" the right to keep and bear arms.

    Neither gets all that much respect from authority.

    1. Monster6969   2 years ago

      The 2nd amendment of the Constitution guarantee that a well-regulated militia have the right to bear arms. People like yourself who want to misrepresent what the second amendment guarantees always omit the part about a well-regulated militia.

      1. Use the Schwartz   2 years ago

        And the willfully disingenuous misrepresent what "well-regulated" (trained) and "militia" (We the People) meant to the Founders.

        So, do fuck off now.

      2. Chocolatejeebus   2 years ago

        Holy fucking shit, you are one stupid, evil motherfucker.

      3. Rossami   2 years ago

        What an interesting tactic - claim that others are misrepresenting by doing precisely that yourself.

      4. Chumby   2 years ago

        A militia of one

    2. rloquitur   2 years ago

      You do realize that with rights come responsibilities. Before you post, please be acquainted with coplaw, you know, the law of the land.

    3. MrMxyzptlk   2 years ago

      Monster 6969 shows why neither of those gets much respect. Plenty of people like him put police up on pedestals and want us common folk to grovel to them.

  3. Chumby   2 years ago

    What would Brian Boitano do?

    1. Idaho-Bob   2 years ago

      Had to google that shit.

    2. Ajsloss   2 years ago

      Skate on a technicality.

      1. Chumby   2 years ago

        You’re on thin ice with that one.

      2. Wizard4169   2 years ago

        Please consider yourself upvoted.

  4. LIBertrans   2 years ago

    Something wrong here. Bush courts regard the good-faith utterances of cops the way the Taliban receives the revealed word of Mohammed. What's wrong with prosecuting the malcontent under Louisiana statutes forbidding heresy and backtalk?

    1. rloquitur   2 years ago

      My sense exactly, With rights comes responsibility. You can't just go mouthing off and hurting the feelings of cops. You can't just go calling public officials clueless, or else no one would respect their authoritay. And we cannot have that. He's lucky that the wuss DA didn't prosecute, but this thug hiding behind the First Amendment got the process, so let's count that as a win.

  5. NOYB2   2 years ago

    It's fascinating how Reason operates by the same principles as typical progressive outlets trained in neo-Marxist approaches to social change.

    Responsible journalists would describe large scale patterns, statistics, causes/effects, interest groups, libertarian analysis/perspective, motivations, and possible solutions.

    Reason instead picks some instances of government malfeasance with the simple objective of generating maximum outrage.

    1. SRG2   2 years ago

      You're not familiar with the psychology of humans, it seems. People go for stories over data. This, fwiw, is one of the prime causes of presentation suck. Presenters provide data, presentees prefer stories.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_narrans

      1. NOYB2   2 years ago (edited)

        I am very familiar with the fact that narration works for indoctrinating and manipulating people. Socialists, fascists, critical theorists, progressives, and neo-Marxists have used narration very successfully to persuade large numbers of people of all sorts of vile, irrational, destructive, and evil policies.

        I’m saying that a self-proclaimed “libertarian” magazine called “Reason” ought to provide a rational, libertarian justification for its positions; after it has done that, it can still engage in propaganda if they like.

        1. Wizard4169   2 years ago

          So, let's see, it's perfectly okay for agents of the state to abuse their powers as long as they only do it a little.
          Trying to paint yourself as some kind of principled libertarian is beyond laughable.

  6. Liberty_Belle   2 years ago

    QI is unconstitutional. Nobody voted on it, no Congress passed a law about it, no Constitutional Amendment was made regarding it. Why is it even a thing ?

    1. rloquitur   2 years ago

      Because the courts in the 60s created all sorts of rights that no cop could possibly have anticipated. It's grown into a monster.

      1. VULGAR MADMAN   2 years ago

        Imagine people having the right not to be abused by crooked cops, madness!

        1. rloquitur   2 years ago

          That's a ridiculously tendentious response. Cops make honest mistakes, and I was just explaining where QI came from.

          I think, from my previous posts, you can guess where I stand on things like this.

          1. Wizard4169   2 years ago

            Qualified immunity has rapidly grown to cover far more than just "honest mistakes". No one who needs to be told it's not okay to tase or pepper spray someone who's already subdued and restrained has any business being a cop. Who the hell needs to have a formal court decision tell them it's not okay to steal from people?
            Seriously, when you make VM look like the voice of reason, you've officially gone full retard.

    2. SRG2   2 years ago

      And it seems the Supreme Court has constantly held up its hands saying, "well, it's precedent, nothing we can do about it, let Congress sort it out." Meanwhile, too many legislators mistake being tough on crime with being easy on cops.

      1. NOYB2   2 years ago

        And it seems the Supreme Court has constantly held up its hands saying, “well, it’s precedent, nothing we can do about it

        Well, let's hope that they come around and start throwing out back precedent, starting with the wrong interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, the incorporation doctrine, and jus soli.

        1. Wizard4169   2 years ago

          Wow, one out of three ain't... all that great.

  7. Minadin   2 years ago

    "He Was Strip-Searched and Jailed for Criticizing Cops. Now He's Fighting Back in Court."

    Going back for more, eh? Some people are just suckers for punishment.

  8. Barnstormer   2 years ago

    And what about the magistrate or whatever that signed the illegal search warrant?

    Gallows, perhaps?

  9. MrMxyzptlk   2 years ago

    You can't have a police state without police.

  10. Wizard4169   2 years ago

    What, everybody knows that 14:00000 is a well-recognized subsection of the FYTW clause.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Science Needs Dissent: NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya on COVID, Autism, and Climate Change

Matthew Rozsa | 8.2.2025 7:00 AM

Chris Arnade on China, Wall Street, and Walking Around the World

Tyler Cowen | From the August/September 2025 issue

Trump Is Openly Using the Presidency To Enrich the Trump Brand

Matt Welch | 8.1.2025 5:00 PM

A Cop Lied, Fabricated a Sex-Trafficking Case, and Jailed a Teen on False Charges—and Still Can't Be Sued

Billy Binion | 8.1.2025 4:49 PM

Shattering Norms: Federal Immigration Agents Aren't Afraid to Smash Your Car Window

Autumn Billings | 8.1.2025 4:01 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!