CAN YOU VERBALLY CRITICIZE A COP?

A cop can arrest you if you call them names. But the case will likely get thrown out and end up costing taxpayers lots of money because the police will be found to have exceeded their authority by arresting people for calling them unflattering names.

For instance:

·         opprobrious words or abusive words to police, Gooding v. Wilson, 405 US 518 (1972) (statement to police officer “White son of a bitch, I'll kill you." "You son of a bitch, I'll choke you to death" protected speech and to another officer, "You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I'll cut you all to pieces."

·         Verbal challenge to arresting police officer City of Houston, Texas v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) (protected by the First Amendment since a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers is protected speech.)

 Offensive speech does not lose its protection just because it may be directed to a police officer.  The First Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I, protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. Speech is often provocative and challenging, but it is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.  City of Houston, Texas v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987). In United States v. Poocha, 259 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court held that, "criticism of the police, profane or otherwise, is not a crime."  

As disgraceful as a person's language may be, it is not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime but an exercise of freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.  Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461–63.  Indeed, Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, "[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures — and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation." Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944). As succinctly stated by Justice Harlan, “"Governmental bodies may not prescribe the form or content of individual expression." Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. at 23.  Justice William J. Brennan wrote in holding that flag burning is a form of offensive speech protected by the Constitution, "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."  Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 1989. 

As Justice Jackson told us, “freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.”  West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). "The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." Hill, 107 S.Ct. At 2510.