Kentucky Cops Arrest Man for Shouting at Them
"Speaking from a balcony isn't a crime," the man's lawyer says. "And just because a cop was offended because of some language doesn't give him the power to arrest you."

A Kentucky man is suing the police, claiming he was arrested in retaliation for shouting at a group of officers from an apartment balcony. In a complaint filed last month, Brandon Rettig alleges that he was arrested on bogus public intoxication charges after he angered the officers, who violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
According to the lawsuit, on June 8, 2024, Brandon Rettig was at his girlfriend's apartment in Newport, Kentucky, when a team of police officers responded to an unrelated incident outside the building. From the balcony, Rettig shouted at the officers. In a later interview, Rettig claimed to have shouted "go get 'em boys" at the officers. The lawsuit insists that while the officers were angered by the comments, "Rettig did not utter fighting words or threatened to harm anyone."
The suit claims that soon after Rettig made the comments, Officer Ronald Lalumandier shouted up to him, "Keep it up, I'll take your ass to jail," adding "I got keys to your apartment." Three police officers, including Lalumandier, then entered the apartment building using a key card, which Lalumandier had access to as a former tenant.
According to body camera footage, the three officers confronted Rettig in the hallway of the apartment building and arrested him after a short argument.
"Are you serious? I live here," Rettig told the officers.
"Yes, 100 percent. We told you out there, you didn't listen," responded one of the officers. "You shouldn't be doing what you're doing…doesn't mean you can act the way you were acting."
Rettig was taken into police custody and charged with public intoxication, despite the fact that—as the suit notes—the hallway was not public property. Although the charges were later dismissed, Rettig filed a lawsuit against the officers in December, arguing that his arrest was not due to public intoxication, but because he angered the officers by shouting at them.
"Rettig allegedly made critical statements to the Officer Defendants that those officers did not appreciate. This critical speech is protected by the First Amendment," the complaint states. "In response, Defendants retaliated against Rettig, seized him, and arrested him in retaliation for protected speech."
"Speaking from a balcony isn't a crime. Drinking a beer in your living room isn't a crime," Robert Thompson, Rettig's attorney, told WCPO 9 News, a Cincinnati, Ohio-based local news station. "And just because a cop was offended because of some language doesn't give him the power to arrest you."
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
A cop story without mentioning the anniversary of the first degree premeditated assassination of her holiness Saint Babbitt? Fucking leftist.
Ideas™ !
bad karma to make light of murdered girl.
My sarcastic point was that it was not murder. Murder is unlawful and premeditated. Babbitt's death was neither, despite the lies propagated by Team Retard.
>>Murder is unlawful
questionable four years later whether a lawful killing took place.
Let us all not forget how sarcasmic thinks officer Byrd was in the right for killing babbit because the officer couldn't see.
https://reason.com/2024/02/01/bipartisan-tax-credit-bonanza/?comments=true#comment-10425139
Get a fucking life.
Spend a minute thinking about it from the officer's point of view.
I'm quick to condemn police who abuse power, lie on reports and in court, engage in retribution, act in anger, and otherwise intentionally violate rights and abuse the public.
This, while regrettable, was not one of those cases.
>>from the officer's point of view
"wow big crowd. better shoot one in the face before it gets out of hand. maybe I'll get a medal & a book deal."
It is amazing he still tries to justify the murder.
Fuck off, fascist. The only reason you think it's murder is the cunt was a fascist like you.
I guess it depends on one's view about shooting and killing trespassers.
Spend an evening with Ashley's friends in (or behind) their favorite bar. Something regrettable might happen.
The officer's point of view:
Ashli Babbit was standing still in the window frame for over 30 seconds smiling, and standing directly next to at least 2 SWAT officers. She clearly could not hear anything he said, nor could it be made out in audio from any of the released videos.
So, naturally he murdered her because he thought he could get away with it. He's going to find out that won't end well for him - there is no statute of limitations on murder.
Jebus, but you fascist cunts are stupid.
The more you spew childish insults, the less credibility you have, and you've pretty much reached the bottom and kept digging. rather than discuss why you believe as you do, you simply post sarcastic and immature insults. I hope you haven't reproduced, the Klan doesn't need any more members.
Objection. Sarc doesn't understand what sarcasm is. He thinks he can yell it for saying really stupid shit. More akin to this:
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/738025-i-was-only-pretending-to-be-retarded
Ha ha J6 is the event Reason cannot speak of.
Cops should face the same penalty for shit like this as I would if I kidnapped someone and locked them in my basement.
Currently judges and prosecutors turn a blind eye when police knowingly and intentionally arrest someone for charges that they know will be dropped. It's jokingly called POP, or "Pissing Off the Police." Like "testilying," everyone knows that cops do it. I'm still not certain why no one does anything about it. I've heard people say that doing so would harm the "public trust" in the government, but I think people are waking up to the fact that the public that the police serve is everyone else, not them. So that ship has sailed. Are people with the power to punish criminal police afraid of retribution? Do they get something out of it? Just afraid to rock the boat? Because everyone in the system knows that police lie on reports, lie in court, and make up charges to punish people who piss them off. It's an open secret. I don't get it.
Do they lie about things they said when someone reads their very own words back to them, verbatim?
I can only wonder why a homeless drunk hates cops so much.
Judicial absolute immunity and Qualified Immunity for all government employees date from 1967, and absolute prosecutorial immunity is from 1976, all courtesy our Supreme Court. Most people think these are ancient common law tricks. They aren't.
I thought all federal employees had absolute immunity along with judges and prosecutors, and police get qualified immunity.
Most people think these are ancient common law tricks.
First time I heard that. Everyone I know and everything I read about says it was invented by the courts.
By the way, are you still trying to be cool by shunning me, or are you able to have a conversation like a grown man?
By the way, are you still trying to be cool by shunning me,
The mute king hates the thought of being muted.
He really does. Lol. The ole Ken freak out by him is still hilarious. Just more proof he is here to troll.
https://reason.com/2021/07/15/drug-war-pandemic-likely-reasons-for-spike-in-u-s-overdose-deaths/#comment-8995895
A fun trip down memory lane.
Damn that's bizarre. I had no idea he kept track of who doesn't respond to nothing. I knew he made up mute lists, but this? Oh well.
The Good Guise.
p.s. ACAB.
When President Biden retaliates against people who say things he doesn't like, e.g. Trump telling the J6 protesters to be peaceful which Biden thinks was telling them to go kill Pence and take over the Capitol, lower level government officials act that way too. And they get away with it, because the people in government believe they have the privilege of a King, and are the law.
Wow, careful to warm up first before you stretch that hard.
Actually, I shouldn't put words in Biden's mouth (or did he say that?), because there's no telling what's in his mind given his dementia.
Another case that should be a slam dunk. I wonder if it will actually go anywhere or if it gets QI treatment ?
So, why did this cop have a key card even though he didn't live there any more? And why did it just so happen to open that door? Sounds fishy.
A few years ago around here a state trooper stole the plates off of someone's car and put them on his unmarked cruiser so people couldn't look at the plates and immediately know it was a cop. That would be a pretty big deal if you or I did it. Know what happened? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
So, why did this cop have a key card even though he didn't live there any more? And why did it just so happen to open that door? Sounds fishy.
>>Officer Ronald Lalumandier shouted up to him, "Keep it up, I'll take your ass to jail," adding "I got keys to your apartment."
>>Three police officers, including Lalumandier, then entered the apartment
clearly missing verbs and nouns between these two sentences.
If New Jersey teachers don't need to read or write, why should Reason writers?
lol I went to NJ public school but in the 80s the teachers could read & write for the most part
These sentences are perfectly grammatical.
they could be cleaned up. and nice missing the point icwydt
Although the charges were later dismissed, Rettig filed a lawsuit against the officers in December, arguing that his arrest was not due to public intoxication
So, $64,000 question - was he drunk/stoned?
I mean, you can keep regurgitating these Complaints with an ACAB narrative spin all you want, Emma - but you never ask the tough questions, do you.
Let's rewrite your article.
"Kentucky Cops Arrest Intoxicated Man in Apartment Hallway."
Questions are being raised as to the validity in the arrest of an obviously intoxicated man in an apartment complex common area, accessible only to tenants via keycard. According to the police, the man was shouting at them in a harassing manner from a private balcony. Police then used prior access to the building via a keycard still in possession of one of the officers, a former tenant. The arrest, captured by bodycam, was made in the hallway of said apartments. Though charges were dismissed with prejudice, the man is now bringing a civil complaint alleging First Amendment violations.
The crux of this, however, is the conflation of two separate things: the First Amendment right to speech from a private balcony; and the whether or not the "public" of public intoxication extends to the common areas of a keycard-guarded apartment building fortuitously accessed by police officers. To be certain, there is no First Amendment issue at play here, and the State chose not to pursue criminal charges on the latter theory.
This would lend to the conclusion that the State does not feel confident in its case against Kentucky Man, however whether he deserves restitution on either First Amendment or Fourth Amendment grounds remains to be seen.
See, Emma, that's how you write an article. Instead, you just keep giving plaintiff-friendly, uninvestigated, zero-thought-required dog vomit. Please stop that. Make it your New Years Resolution. You'll be a better person.
So, $64,000 question - was he drunk/stoned?
Here's a few more questions.
Are you perhaps not aware that a charge of public intoxication requires both being intoxicated and in a public place?
Is that so obscure a detail that it can't be reasonable to expect officers to know it prior to making arrests for public intoxication?
Is it possible the officers knew the charge wasn't going to stick but wanted to punish the guy with an arrest anyway for daring to not respect their authoritah?
Oh AT knows all those pesky little constitutional and legal details. But you can't make an omelette without bashing in the fucking brains of a few skellizens, I mean citizkells, I mean skellishits, I mean skells...
Are you perhaps not aware that a charge of public intoxication requires both being intoxicated and in a public place?
I made it a point to bring that up. You should finish reading people's posts before your kneejerk kicks you in your own ass.
Yet again, no answers to the questions posed.
Had you finished reading the post, you would have found all your questions answered.
Well, except that last speculative hyper-bigoted ACAB one, which didn't dignify a response. But if you want one, I'll give it to you. Spoiler alert, it starts with "Wa" and ends with "ah." DBAJ. Especially when you hand them a reason to arrest you on a silver platter.
Especially when you hand them a reason to arrest you on a silver platter.
What reason was that, specifically?
No answer. Again. Fortunately, your farce of an 'article' provided this answer.
According to the police, the man was shouting at them in a harassing manner from a private balcony.
The scum had the temerity to not respect their authoritah!
A) I was busy. Learn patience. Not all of us have the luxury of spending all day in mom's basement keyboard warrioring like you do.
B) You read right there what they arrested him for.
This is you just being intentionally dense to keep up the ACAB narratives.
Yes, the cops arrested the guy for shouting at them. Public intoxication was a pretense so blatantly invalid that the charge was dismissed with prejudice.
It's only police Mouseketeers like you who think that the idea that any police officer might at any point in their careers ever behave in a less than purely professional manner is a 'hyper-bigoted ACAB' opinion.
No, they arrested him for public intoxication. Go read the article before you post.
I read the article, and the charge was so blatantly invalid from a legal standpoint that it was dismissed with prejudice. Either the cops were so monumentally stupid as to not know the charge would be laughed out of court under the circumstances presented, or they were using it as a pretext to slap cuffs on someone for being mouthy. Which is it?
Great, so the justice system worked. What's your issue?
You can call it a pretext until you're blue in the face, but the fact very clearly appears to be that he was, in fact, drunk. Or at least there was a reasonable belief to consider him as such. We're not privy as to what tests he consented to.
That's why - go all the way back to the beginning - what was the very first thing I asked? Because if he WAS, in fact, publicly intoxicated, then the cop had EVERY JUST CAUSE to arrest him - even if you want to regard it as a pretext. Just like he has every right to pull you over for a busted tail light, even though he could care less about it and more about the suspicion that you've got drugs in your car.
We're also not clear as to why the charges were dropped. My suspicion, if you'll recall, was that the "public" side of the intoxication was the basis for dropping charges; not the intoxication. If that's the case, then it's entirely reasonable to have arrested the guy and then a prosecutor review it and determine, "Y'know what, according to the way the law (or even his lease) reads, he wasn't actually publicly so. I'm not going to chase this." There's actually a lot of nuance in that. Same reason you can be picked up for smoking crack on your front porch. Your private property - still considered public under public intoxication laws.
Not that you care about any of this mind you, your sole purpose in these discussions is to self-validate/self-affirm your ACAB nonsense.
And you're conveniently ignoring the full context of the encounter:
What was Rettig "keeping up" at the time this statement was made to justify taking his as to jail? At this point he was on an apartment balcony, clearly not a public place. So he was legally free to be as drunk as he wanted.
The indication of this statement is that the arrest was a result of conduct taking place within a private space: the balcony of the apartment. But then why didn't the cops say the balcony was the public space in which Rettig was intoxicated? Because they knew that was a lie. So they used the hallway instead: calling a common area that is still only accessible via keycard a public space was a pretext for the arrest. Furthermore, if the cops actually told Rettig to come out there because they figured the hallway was a public space sufficient to warrant the charge laid, then that may also be entrapment.
You can call it a pretext until you're blue in the face, but the fact very clearly appears to be that he was, in fact, drunk. Or at least there was a reasonable belief to consider him as such. We're not privy as to what tests he consented to.
That's why - go all the way back to the beginning - what was the very first thing I asked? Because if he WAS, in fact, publicly intoxicated, then the cop had EVERY JUST CAUSE to arrest him - even if you want to regard it as a pretext.
No, they did not have 'just cause' to arrest him, as clearly shown when the charges were dismissed with prejudice. From the balcony he was within his legal rights to be drunk. And it was while Rettig was on the balcony that the first threat to be hauled to jail was made by the police.
What was Rettig "keeping up" at the time this statement was made to justify taking his as to jail?
Doesn't matter. 100% irrelevant. I know you want to try to make it relevant, but it's still not.
Dude gave him all the excuse they needed when he stepped out (ostensibly) in public while intoxicated. That's all that matters. Now cop has a legitimate reason.
The indication of this statement is that the arrest was a result of conduct taking place within a private space
No it's not. Not even a little bit. If that were the case they would have arrested him for "acting the way he was acting" on the balcony.
They didn't do that.
They arrested him for public intoxication. Which, by all appearances, he was.
Furthermore, if the cops actually told Rettig to come out there
Facts not in evidence.
then that may also be entrapment.
Put on the nose, Clown World.
No, they did not have 'just cause' to arrest him, as clearly shown when the charges were dismissed with prejudice.
One has nothing to do with the other. If a kid swipes a candy bar and gets arrested for petty larceny, the charges can be - and often are when they're first time - dropped with a, "Get outta here kid, don't let this happen again."
Doesn't mean they were wrong, or lacked just cause, to arrest him. Just that they see less utility in trying to prosecute him than cutting him loose with a warning.
And it was while Rettig was on the balcony that the first threat to be hauled to jail was made by the police.
Again, irrelevant. If the cop was making threats of arrest (as cops often do), they would have known (but Drunky McBalcony likely wouldn't) they were empty threats. No basis on which to arrest him.
Drunky later handed them one on a silver platter. Maybe the cops goaded him into it, but they're allowed to do that too. Criminals are dumb and fall for that stuff all the time.
What was Rettig "keeping up" at the time this statement was made to justify taking his ass to jail?
Doesn't matter. 100% irrelevant.
100% untrue. What illegal conduct was Rettig engaged in at the time the threat to arrest him was made? According to even you, he was doing nothing illegal at this time. So the police should have just ignored him.
The indication of this statement is that the arrest was a result of conduct taking place within a private space
No it's not. Not even a little bit. If that were the case they would have arrested him for "acting the way he was acting" on the balcony.
They didn't do that.
They didn't do that because they knew, as you and I agree, there was no basis for an arrest regarding Rettig's conduct while on the balcony.
They arrested him for public intoxication. Which, by all appearances, he was.
Except the situation so clearly did not meet the necessary legal criteria that the charge was dismissed with prejudice.
This is different that a prosecutor just dropping charges. Judges don't dismiss charges with prejudice when a suspect is guilty but prosecutors just don't have the time or resources to pursue a conviction, or want to let a guy off with a warning. This is a judge looking at the circumstances of the arrest and saying "This charge is so egregiously wrong that it can never be brought against this person again, ever."
If the cop was making threats of arrest (as cops often do), they would have known (but Drunky McBalcony likely wouldn't) they were empty threats. No basis on which to arrest him.
Wow, we are in agreement here. Rettig's conduct on the balcony was entirely legal, yet he was threatened with an arrest.
Drunky later handed them one on a silver platter. Maybe the cops goaded him into it, but they're allowed to do that too.
No they aren't.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements
100% untrue. What illegal conduct was Rettig engaged in at the time the threat to arrest him was made?
Doesn't matter. What matters is the illegal conduct he engaged in when he was actually arrested.
They didn't do that because they knew, as you and I agree, there was no basis for an arrest regarding Rettig's conduct while on the balcony.
Right. Which is why they didn't arrest him for that.
This is a judge looking at the circumstances of the arrest and saying "This charge is so egregiously wrong that it can never be brought against this person again, ever."
lol, you have no idea what you're talking about. All "with prejudice" means is that they can't refile the charges. It's not a commentary (let alone one that the judge found it "egregiously wrong", lmao - bet you can't cite to that, can you!) - and even if it was, that has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct of the cops.
It's just the Court saying, "Don't waste our time with this case again."
Rettig's conduct on the balcony was entirely legal, yet he was threatened with an arrest.
So what?
No they aren't.
You literally cited to the definition, and still got it completely wrong. Wow.
Entrapment is, "Commit a crime you wouldn't have committed on your own." That's not the case for Drunky. He was already drunk. He then stepped out in public. They didn't ask him to commit a crime. He did that all by himself.
Try getting some actual legal education, Chip. Stop letting ACAB's program your NPC brain as to how it "works."
Doesn't matter. What matters is the illegal conduct he engaged in when he was actually arrested.
Which still turns out to have been nothing, since alcohol is explicitly excluded from Kentucky's public intoxication statute. (H/T to con_fuse9)
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19929
Entrapment is, "Commit a crime you wouldn't have committed on your own." That's not the case for Drunky. He was already drunk. He then stepped out in public. They didn't ask him to commit a crime. He did that all by himself.
Try getting some actual legal education, Chip.
As I said, IF he was asked by the police to come out into the hallway it may be entrapment. We agree that neither you nor I know if this actually happened.
Regardless, Rettig committed no crime according to the laws of the state he was in. He met neither the public criterion of the law, nor the intoxication criterion because alcohol was explicitly excluded. He was threatened with arrest for doing nothing wrong, and then later arrested for doing nothing wrong.
Turns out a thirty second Google search gave me a better legal education than the two cops who may have attempted to entrap but certainly falsely arrested Rettig.
Which still turns out to have been nothing, since alcohol is explicitly excluded from Kentucky's public intoxication statute.
Think he smelled like weed? Drugs and alcohol often go hand in hand. (Although, oddly enough, not the other way around.) Who knows. Reason is garbage at actually investigating the stories they breathlessly report on.
Regardless, Rettig committed no crime according to the laws of the state he was in.
Which is why his charges were dismissed. Justice served.
He was threatened with arrest for doing nothing wrong, and then later arrested for doing nothing wrong.
No, he was arrested for public intoxication. But the State didn't have a very good case to seek conviction, and the Court didn't want their time wasted for them to go find one.
Turns out a thirty second Google search gave me a better legal education than the two cops who may have attempted to entrap but certainly falsely arrested Rettig.
They did neither of those things. Spend more than 30 seconds next time.
Think he smelled like weed?
No, because recreational marijuana is illegal in Kentucky, and that would have been an actual reason to arrest Rettig. But they didn't charge him with that. Instead they cited 'a strong odor of alcohol' as the reason for arrest for a law that did not apply. That was in one of the articles cited in this Reason piece you continually crap on.
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/2024/12/19/newport-police-sued-after-man-says-he-was-arrested-for-comments/77085149007/
Your desperate attempts to defend the cops from any and all wrongdoing are noted.
Kentucky public intoxication law excludes alcohol.
525.100 Public intoxication.
A person is guilty of public intoxication when he appears in a public place
manifestly under the influence of a controlled substance, or other intoxicating
substance, excluding alcohol (unless the alcohol is present in combination with any
of the above), not therapeutically administered, to the degree that he may endanger
himself or other persons or property, or unreasonably annoy persons in his vicinity.
Was he endangering himself or others or property? No.
Was he unreasonably annoying persons nearby - note in many states the police cannot be the complaining party - it has to be someone else (a neighbor?)
Since the charges were dropped so quickly, I would guess the officers own report didn't establish probable cause.
It takes twice as long to become a barber than a cop.
Obviously this cop needs to be required to go through de-sensitivity training. Essentially, training where he is endlessly shouted at and is forced to sit there and listen. Not for an hour or a single day, but for several hours each week for over 6 months.
This is the same with a dog who is overly sensitive and becomes aggressive at inappropriately. You need to slowly make them uncomfortable and ratchet it up until they are de-sensitive. My dog was very agitated around the face and she would snap at people. I had to give her face rubs where I could control her and keep her from snipping. Now she is de-sensitized and can control toddlers pulling and prodding and has learned she can leave and hide if it gets to be too much.
Sorry for equating this cop to a dog, but if the shoe fits. We give cops the power of force and they should be held to a higher standard because of it. If this cop can't roll with the verbal punches, then he should get out of the kitchen and return to private life and employment.
"Speaking from a balcony isn't a crime," the man's lawyer says. "And just because a cop was offended because of some language doesn't give him the power to arrest you."
Yes, it is.
Just ask Himmler, Beria or McFarland.
Can't let this go:
The pic of the 5'-5" Cop with knock-knees, doughnut belly, blacked-out tats (gosh I wonder what's under there?), Rogaine haircut, and ever so tiny mustache, is absolutely perfect.
I do not have all facts and admit it.
But you are generally a grade-A fool if you go on a rant with cops.
Was he surpised that he was arrested? Well there you go