Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Confiscation of man's 'Cops Ahead' signs violated First Amendment rights, appeals court says
Confiscation of man's 'Cops Ahead' signs violated First Amendment rights, appeals court says
BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS
MARCH 2, 2023, 1:32 PM CST
A police officer’s confiscation of two signs reading “Cops Ahead” violated the First Amendment rights of the man who was holding them, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York revived Michael Friend’s claims that the Stamford, Connecticut, police officer violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourth Amendment right against malicious prosecution. But the appeals court ruled against Friend on his 14th Amendment claims regarding his $25,000 bail.
Friend was alerting drivers to an enforcement operation ahead that targeted cellphone use while driving.
“There was no basis for suggesting that Friend’s speech does not receive the protection of the First Amendment,” the 2nd Circuit said in a Feb. 27 decision.
[...]
BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS
MARCH 2, 2023, 1:32 PM CST
A police officer’s confiscation of two signs reading “Cops Ahead” violated the First Amendment rights of the man who was holding them, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York revived Michael Friend’s claims that the Stamford, Connecticut, police officer violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourth Amendment right against malicious prosecution. But the appeals court ruled against Friend on his 14th Amendment claims regarding his $25,000 bail.
Friend was alerting drivers to an enforcement operation ahead that targeted cellphone use while driving.
“There was no basis for suggesting that Friend’s speech does not receive the protection of the First Amendment,” the 2nd Circuit said in a Feb. 27 decision.
[...]
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
