Disorderly Conduct Charge for Giving Officers the Finger

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

You're "talking" to a bunch of people who are almost painfully aware that those little nuances, the minutiae, can make all the difference.

It is, you might say, a literal lexicon of legalisms!

:)

Quote:

---

jkl1234;770118]OK yeah I understand the time thing. I thought you were saying the deal I have would somehow effect it, the same way if I plead guilty would.

---

I really do not know. While I can speculate as to reasons it might, I can also see reasons it wouldn't. I would rather not mislead you with a guess.

Quote:

---

I didn't mean it that literally, I don't get how y'all don't get that.

---

I'm a literal kind of guy.

Quote:

---

I can say f the president, I can be racist, or just down right rude and not be arrested legally.

---

well, when speaking of the pres, you actually do need to be overly cautious. It takes a lot less for statements to cause the speaker a problem than with any other person. It shouldn't be that way but it is. Just a fact of life.


as to being rude; again, proceed with caution. What you consider rude may be something quite different from another persons perspective. Sometimes it does not appear to take much to fulfill the elements of the laws being charged.

Don't get me wrong. I believe the laws being used in these issues are overly oppressive and beyond that, stretched and even abused with regularity. I disagree with a good portion of the disorderly conduct laws as they are written and disagree with how they are being used to charge a person in situations where it appears it is for no valid reason and is simply as a proof of power issue with some of the cops out there. Your situation as you describe it is exactly what I have a problem with. There was no reason for the cops to make a huge issue out of getting flipped off, especially since it was a cop that you flipped off.

If nothing else, you might try contacting the ACLU regarding your situation.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I'm simply saying that if you are serious, I would not wait the 6 months before you speak with a lawyer about this. Time is not your friend and if the SOL to file a suit of this sort is extremely short, it may be too late if you wait the 6 months. Once the time limit has passed, you are sol on filing suit.

I am not going to suggest I have a definitive answer. I am simply suggesting to err on the side of making sure you meet any time limitations.

---

If he "files suit" before the charges are found in his favor, then he will lose as a matter of law in summary judgment. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

Most states require a "claim" made against the governmental agency to avoid absolute immunity under the state tort claims act. There the time limit is very constricted and the OP can make such a claim and that is why I mentioned 6 months.

OK thanks for the help, I'm definitely going to talk to my lawyer about the particulars.

Now one more question, are police videos like backseat cameras and the cameras in the booking area public record? If they do have videos of that night are they required to give them out if asked? And if so how do I ask for them? Do I need to go to the court house or the police station?

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

If he "files suit" before the charges are found in his favor, then he will lose as a matter of law in summary judgment. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

---

I understand your statement but......

Quote:

---

Held: In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a §1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has notbeen so invalidated is not cognizable under §1983.

---

from one of the links provided previously by the OP:

Quote:

---

Elledge ordered Hackbart to stop his vehicle and cited him for violating a state statute prohibiting the use of obscene language and gestures, the lawsuit alleges.

A district justice found Hackbart guilty of violating the statute, but the district attorney withdrew the charge after the ruling was appealed to a higher court.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued saying Hackbart's gesture was constitutionally protected speech and merited a lawsuit.

---

which if the of the methods specified in the decision would apply to Hackbart's situation?

the fact is, there needs be no conviction of any crime for a 1983 claim to be applicable. It is not based solely on the conviction but simple the actions of the officers in dealing with the person.


but anyway, outside of that:

re: statute of limitations:

Quote:

---

WALLACE v. KATO et al.


certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit


We hold that the statute of limitations upon a §1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process. Since in the present case this occurred (with appropriate tolling for the plaintiff's minority) more than two years before the complaint was filed, the suit was out of time. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

---

re; validity of suit prior to finalization of criminal proceedings (same case)

Quote:

---

We are not disposed to embrace this bizarre extension of Heck.If a plaintiff files a false arrest claim before he has been convicted (or files any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended. See id., at 487-488, n. 8 (noting that "abstention may be an appropriate response to the parallel state-court proceedings"); Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 730 (1996). If the plaintiff is ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will proceed, absent some other bar to suit. Edwards v. Balisok,520 U. S. 641, 649 (1997); Heck, 512 U. S., at 487.

---