Court: Yakima police violated free speech rights

February 8, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - Yakima police violated a man's free speech rights when they arrested him during a traffic stop in retaliation for arguing and what one officer termed "running his mouth," a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a lower court decision and orders a trial in the case.

Police arrested Eddie Ford on July 17, 2007, on a noise ordinance violation. He was acquitted in municipal court and filed suit against the city and the two officers involved, claiming they arrested him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech.

Ford had stepped out of his vehicle at a stop light and approached the police car behind him to ask why he was being followed so closely. Officer Ryan Urlacher ordered Ford back to his car, then pulled him over as they proceeded through the intersection, according to court documents.

Urlacher arrested Ford on a noise ordinance violation after Ford again stepped out of his vehicle and argued with the officer, claiming the stop was racially motivated.

The officer had repeatedly warned Ford he would be arrested if he didn't cooperate, otherwise he would receive a ticket. Ford ultimately stopped arguing, but Urlacher arrested him anyway, telling Ford his mouth and attitude had talked him into jail, according to court documents.

U.S District Judge Lonny Suko in Eastern Washington dismissed Ford's lawsuit against the city of Yakima, Urlacher and Lt. Nolan Wentz, who also responded to the scene. Suko ruled that the manner in which Ford confronted Urlacher, not merely his language, led the officer to reasonably conclude the arrest was warranted.

The higher court reversed that decision Friday, finding that officers booked and jailed Ford in retaliation for his protected speech. That move violates Ford's right to be free of retaliatory arrest, even if the officers had probable cause to arrest Ford for violating the noise ordinance, the ruling said.

Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan dissented from the majority opinion, saying the court failed to appreciate that a person's right to free speech is different after he or she has been detained by police.

"This case raises an issue of first impression," Callahan wrote. "It is not a case of retaliatory arrest."


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More Local News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (2)


  • Add A Comment

  • CH wrote...
    mouth and attitude
    February 8, 2013 12:25 pm
    just like a republican.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chris Halliday wrote...
    Cha Ching
    February 8, 2013 2:52 pm
    Eddie is going to rake in the cash on his suit and rightfully so. Idiot cops think they can make up the laws as they go along, but that is simply not the case. As long as you don't threaten the cop, you can say whatever you want to them. That attitude of "running your mouth just bought you some jail time" doesn't fly in a court of law. This reminds me of the Oregon man who successfully sued for $4000 after he flipped off a couple cops on different occasions and one falsely accused him of a number of violations. Another pulled him over wrongfully and read him the riot act. In Pennsylvania another man got $50,000 after flipping off a cop. The cop wrongfully sighted him for disorderly conduct and the ACLU put the kibosh on that. So CH, it is your constitutional right to have a mouth and an attitude. It is not a lowlife cop's right to arrest you for having those two God given things.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }