Man Who Was Arrested for Flipping Off Cop Settles for $175,000
However distasteful, the First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to give a police officer the middle finger.

A man who was arrested and charged for flipping off a Vermont State Police (VSP) officer settled his case last month for $175,000.
"Far too often, police abuse their authority to retaliate against and suppress speech they personally find offensive or insulting," Lia Ernst, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Vermont, tells Reason about the case. "This settlement demonstrates that violating these rights does not come without a cost."
Through the settlement, Gregory Bombard will receive $100,000 in damages. The ACLU of Vermont and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which both represented Bombard in his suit, will receive the remaining $75,000.
All told, Bombard spent "about a year fighting the criminal charges and more than three years seeking declaratory relief," a spokesperson for FIRE tells Reason.
Jay Riggen, the officer who arrested Bombard, "retired from VSP effective May 31, 2024," a spokesperson for the Vermont State Police tells Reason. "We have no additional comment on this case."
In February 2018, Bombard was stopped by Vermont State Trooper Riggen, who believed Bombard had given him the finger while driving—an allegation Bombard denies. However, after Riggen walked away from the car, Bombard flipped Riggen off and swore at the officer in frustration for having been pulled over.
In response, Riggen pulled Bombard over again and arrested him for disorderly conduct. "The first one may have been an error," said Riggen during the arrest, referring to the reason for the initial stop, but "the second one certainly was not."
Bombard's suit claimed that, error or not, the action is constitutionally protected. "Giving the 'middle finger' and using curse words to protest a police officer's actions constitute expression that is protected by the First Amendment," wrote Bombard's counsel in his complaint.
"The state settled in all likelihood because it was highly likely that a court would rule that Mr. Bombard's First Amendment rights were violated," Peter Teachout, a professor at Vermont Law School, says. "The First Amendment protects not only verbal communications but also 'expressive conduct,'" which could include gestures.
"There is, in fact, a significant body of First Amendment and Fourth Amendment case law generated by police retaliating against people who hurt their feelings—most of it firmly upholding the right to hurl choice words or gestures at public officials," wrote Reason's C.J. Ciaramella last year. That includes a 2013 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which sided with a New York man who was arrested for giving a cop the middle finger, and a 2021 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which ruled in favor of a Minnesota man whom a police officer pulled over and arrested because he flipped her the bird.
In this case, Bombard's gesture expressed a very simple idea: distaste at Riggen for pulling him over. And, whether or not the officer knew it in the moment, expressions of such distaste are generally safeguarded by the First Amendment.
"Police officers can't (in theory) arrest you for annoying them or even angering them," Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School, tells Reason via email. "You have the right to be vituperative as long as you are not threatening."
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
Cops aren’t allowed to be the complaintant in a disorderly charge.
Since when? “Disorderly conduct” is basically just a charge of FYTW. If a cop wants to arrest someone and can’t find anything more specific, then they’re charged with disorderly conduct. Think of it as a “Go to jail free” card. Since it’s incredibly vague it’s hard to either conclusively prove or disprove, so the charge often gets dropped eventually, but only after Jon Q. Schmuck gets the indignity of getting hauled off to jail and maybe a court appearance or two for good measure. The process is the punishment.
Some of us really, really, old farts remember a certain vice-president utilizing that particular, constitutionally protected hand gesture.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/rockefeller-middle-finger-1976/
At the time, Rockefeller’s finger flashing was scandalous and the gesture was referred to thereafter as “The Rockefeller Salute”. Rockefeller refused to apologize for his outburst
Why settle ? This case even has the magic anti-QI “previous case clearly established” clause. If they didn’t do the right thing for 3 years, screw it … I’m going for the “W” at the trial with full bells and whistles. Set additional precedent, etc.
Because the government has all the time in the world and can delay or postpone the case until the plaintiff dies of old age.
Getting some backchatter that Biden may be stepping down as early as this weekend… and when he does, he won’t endorse Harris.
Dems are apparently going to keep their powder dry for Newsom in 2028.
He's going to spend his Covid recovery in quiet personal reflection.
You know, there's something suspicious about the COVID diagnosis. Biden, apparently had said, "if a doctor tells me there's something wrong, then I'll step down" (sorry that's paraphrased). I can't help but wonder if this is the 'the doctor told me there's something wrong with me' moment.
A picture of the doctor - - - -
https://babylonbee.com/news/doctor-sadly-informs-biden-only-cure-for-covid-is-euthanasia
I hope he doesn’t. I’ve been waiting for a lomg time for the democrats to tear each other apart. And it must not only continue, but escalate.
I hope it destroys them.
Ok, JD Vance said something absolutely BASED!
He said he'd refuse to debate Kamala Harris until she picks her running-mate.
"retired from VSP effective May 31, 2024," a spokesperson for the Vermont State Police tells Reason.
“He’s arresting flipper offers in a completely different county now” ( i assume)
Oh, this was in Vermont. I understand the confusion. In New Hampshire, you’re required to flip off police officers.
The cop pulled him over 1st because he thought he might have given him the finger as he passed.
Then caught up to him and pulled him over when he did give him the finger.
The only action here was giving him the finger.
What you are describing is a completely different thing. You might has well said "If you tell the cop to f-off while your punching him in the face, you will get arrest for battery on a police officer"
DUH!
"Police officers can't (in theory) arrest you for annoying them or even angering them," Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School, tells Reason via email. "You have the right to be vituperative as long as you are not threatening."
Or obstructing.
If you stand in front of a cop, and walk backwards, keeping pace while he patrols, screaming in his face, "AM I ANNOYING YOU? AM I ANNOYING YOU? AM I ANNOYING YOU?" - yea, you're going to jail. If you ride his bumper and lay on your horn following him wherever he goes for a few miles - yea, you're going to jail. Because now you're interfering with his ability to do his job. I guarantee you won't get out of that on a 1A claim.
I'd say I was surprised at Becky for not including that, but she's Harvard. They're idiots.
You notice that the attorneys got more than the plaintiff. Just sayin'.
The Plaintiff got $100,000 and the attorneys $75,000 so how do you figure?
Math is racist.
If $75,000 identifies as greater than $100,000, then it must be so.
I've got an idea. How about acting like a civilized adult and not flip anyone off? Problem solved.
I'm not sure which is more laughable - the notion that people are "civilized" any more, or that they're "adults."
Perhaps we shouldn't hire little kids to be our police officers.
How about cops acting like civilized adults and not responding to insults with violence and kidnapping?
How about the cop give at least a small amount of respect to the constitution he falsely claims to support and defend?
Why don't people have the right to resist this sort of Gestapo conduct?
Some states you do.
the charge is "Resisting a lawful arrest"
However, cops have guns and they have friends with guns and if they "fear for their life" they will use the guns and unless its really egregious (meaning caught on someone cell phone or ring camera - they can suppress body worn cameras so long as their is an active investigation) they will at best get a slap on the wrist.