Constitutional interpretation is left to the courts, or so we’re taught in law school.  But then, cops don’t go to law school, rendering our finely honed analysis subject to the sensibilities of any given cop on any given day.  One particular cop in Searcy, Arkansas, made this point particularly clear.

From Eugene Volokh,

Just before noon Friday, Barnett was standing at the northwest corner of Beebe-Capps Expressway and South Main, near a former feed store containing numerous Reeves signs, holding a sign. The sign’s four lines said, “Debate Brian! Chicken s***; 1. Kyle Reeves; 2. Monte Betts.”

“You can probably get away with saying he’s chicken, but since he’s an alderman and a member of the city council, you can’t,” Johnson told Barnett. “That word is not acceptable.”

When Sergeant Tom McGee arrived, the three went next door to a tire shop and Barnett could be heard offering to change the sign. Within minutes, however, Barnett was arrested, charged with disorderly conduct, apparently for refusing to obey an officer.

“I asked him on four occasions to remove those letters from that sign,” McGee said. “He did remove the ‘i’ but I asked him to remove the entire word.”

Of course, the irony is that this is precisely the sort of speech that the 1st Amendment is meant to protect.  And precisely why it needs to be protected, since those who wander the streets with guns and shields are likely inclined to believe that those in public office are particularly deserving of their protection. 

A few minutes after his arrest, the police changed their mind, gave Barnett a citation and let him go.  But the harm was done, and he must still answer the citation.  The official police response to questions from the Daily Citizen reporter was that:

“He didn’t comply enough,” said Terri Lee, police spokesman. “The ‘i’ was crossed out with a mark that looked like an “I.” It wasn’t enough. They [the officers] could still read it and they wanted it where it wasn’t offensive to anyone.”

After all, isn’t speech all about what offends the guys with guns?  A common theme amongst our friends with a law & order bent is that people could avoid these silly problems if they just did what they were told by the cops.  It’s all so simple from that perspective.  If the cop says “jump”, you ask “how high?”  Easy.

But with young men and women fighting and dying for freedom in foreign lands, it would be disrespectful to ignore the exercise of those very rights for which they are at risk.  It’s shocking that police officers think so little of Americans in harm’s way.

One might think that law enforcement officers are trained, at least to some limited degree, in the scope of their authority to control the expression of thought.  One might forgive an error on some highly nuanced aspect, particularly where it implicates legitimate law enforcement concerns such as public safety.  But finding a vulgar word offensive, particularly when used in reference to an elected official, isn’t even in the ballpark of valid exercise of the police power.

And then there’s the perpetual police rationalization.  It’s not just that the citizen was doing something that upset the officers sensitive feelings, but that he didn’t comply the way the cop wanted.  It’s “the same situation,”

Like the church
Like a cop
Like a mother
You want me to be truthful
Sometimes you turn it on me like a weapon though
And I need your approval