Calling the ACLU -- KUAR
Rod Bryan, the independent candidate for governor in 2006, believes in free speech. Unfortunately for him, the authorities don't have a similar respect for the Bill of Rights.
You may remember that Bryan was excluded from a televised gubernatorial debate at ASU in 2006. Minor candidates were not allowed.
Today, Bryan got to speak his piece. But it got him in trouble with the LRPD.
Bryan was bicycling to work at his job at the Boulevard Bread outlet in the River Market. He'd just crested the long hill on Seventh Street west of the Capitol when a pair of police cruisers roared by at what he estimated at 80 mph. He said they weren't running flashing lights or sirens. As they zipped past, Bryan shouted, "Turn on your lights."
One of the patrol cars promptly screeched to a halt and the officer jumped out to brace Bryan, demanding to know what he'd said. "Turn on your lights," he repeated. A long, heated conversation ensued. Bryan wasn't about to apologize. The cop, who called in multiple units as backup, wasn't about to say he might have overreacted.
End of story: Bryan received a citation for disorderly conduct. I'll be surprised if Judge Lee Munson decides this clearly protected speech amounts to disorderly conduct, but you never know. It's a shame Bryan will have to take the morning off from bakery duties to appear in court in defense of the First Amendment. Any willing lawyers out there?
UPDATE: 1) A noted defender of civil liberties called and volunteered to help Rod. We've put them in touch. 2) Ron Breeding is all over this for KUAR like a duck on a june bug -- or a cop on Rod Bryan. KUAR has police report, taped interviews, photos, etc., and this nice detail from the cops -- Bryan seems to have been charged for exhibiting "dislike" for how law enforcers do their job. Can't have that in these United States.



Comments
Maybe Dustin McDaniels dad will do it since he is now suing Gun Makers after his son took so much heat for it in the election. Makes we wonder is Dustin is a just a balded face lier after claiming he was a family man and Gun guy then turning around after he gets elected to file a divorice and sue gun makers.
"Mitchell Johnson apologized for his role in the shooting deaths nine years ago of a teacher and four students at Westside Middle School while continuing to insist - in a videotaped statement made last month - that he never intended to hurt anyone. The deposition was taken April 2 by Jonesboro attorney Bobby McDaniel. The attorney is pursuing a civil action against Johnson, shooter Andrew Golden and the manufacturer of one of the guns used in the schoolyard slayings."
Posted by: wideopen
|
May 10, 2007 09:19 AM
I regularly watch LRPD cars going way too fast up and down Markham/3rd street with no lights or sirens.
Like Rod, I scream at the cars that are going to fast also, but I am smart enough to realize that cops are not are not like the rest of us. Most of them are hot-headed college dropouts with a tendancy to overreact.
Cops are dangerous. Avoid them when you can or find yourself at their mercy. Case in point # 11,992,233 LRPD vs Rod Bryan.
Posted by: Brunolinski
|
May 10, 2007 09:20 AM
At first blush, it appears possible that the cop violated Bryan's federally guaranteed civil rights (that First Amendment thing) while acting under color of state law (that badge and gun thing).
If it can be proved, the cop has violated Title 42 section 1983 of the U.S. Code, and is liable for damages. If Bryan wins, his lawyer may get attorney's fees under 42 USC 1988.
The hard part will be reaching the LRPD's liability carrier, since the city is immune and cops tend to be judgment-proof (that blood from a turnip thing), but Bryan should probably at least talk to a lawyer.
Posted by: Silverback66
|
May 10, 2007 09:50 AM
The goobers were in that much of a hurry to get somewheres and had time to stop and harass a cyclist? (max speed ~25 mph, but that ain't uphill)
I'd presume the "hot light" was on at the donut shop, but they were going the wrong way.
Posted by: Up The Road
|
May 10, 2007 09:51 AM
wideopen: of course he's a bald-faced liar.
Posted by: Prouster
|
May 10, 2007 09:57 AM
I do cases like that for free all the time and would do it for free, except I don't think Rod likes me very much.
I think a polite phone call to the police and Larry Jegley would get it dismissed without trial.
I'm curious what the police report says ( probably next to nothing )
Back in the day, I handled dozens of disorderly conduct cases. I'm not sure about now -- but back then - according to the police -- disorderly conduct included juveniles flashing gang signs to the police. I think I probably dismissed every one of those cases without going to trial.
Disorderly conduct is a overly broad charge that needs some refinement as it give the police too much discretion to, as the gang-bangers used to say "hang paper" on them.
And........while this is TMI.........
5-71-207. Disorderly conduct.
(a) A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct if, with the purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm or recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, he or she:
(1) Engages in fighting or in violent, threatening, or tumultuous behavior;
(2) Makes unreasonable or excessive noise;
(3) In a public place, uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture, in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response;
(4) Disrupts or disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons;
(5) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic;
(6) Congregates with two (2) other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order to disperse of a law enforcement officer or other person engaged in enforcing or executing the law;
(7) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition;
(8) In a public place, mars, defiles, desecrates, or otherwise damages a patriotic or religious symbol that is an object of respect by the public or a substantial segment of the public; or
(9) In a public place, exposes his or her private parts.
(b) Disorderly conduct is a Class C misdemeanor.
Posted by: hoglawyer
|
May 10, 2007 10:38 AM
These police officers sound like the ones who broke up the peaceful immigration demonstration in Los Angeles last week.
The officers need some intense schooling in freedom of speech, on the fact that the police are NOT all-powerful, and on the fact that they work for us. They also need a suspension.
Posted by: Spirit
|
May 10, 2007 10:44 AM
I know not Mr. Bryan nor how snarling his "turn on your lights" might have been BUT an officer at that speed is a danger to the public if there are not both audio and video clues to his presence. Some of us are old coots who don't hear so well who would likely see the cop car first because of the flashing lights. If that is not SOP for the LRPD, Chief Thomas ought to make it so today. As to the comment by a post above: if the officer were in such a hurry what critical police business was postponed by bullying a bicyclist?
ARK. BLOG: As Rod noted to me, if the business was so important, how come a number of cruisers had time to encircle this desperado for purposes of mass intimidation?
Posted by: Janus
|
May 10, 2007 10:51 AM
Rod is lucky. He could have been gunned down as in Washington County.
Posted by: Cato
|
May 10, 2007 11:04 AM
Driving 80 mph down city streets without lights or siren is inexcusable. These Barney Fife wannabees could care less about public safety in LR, since few of them even live within the city limits due to no residency requirements in their current contract.
Posted by: MysteryShopper
|
May 10, 2007 11:10 AM
Did the multiple cop cars:
"(5) Obstruct[s] vehicular or pedestrian traffic;"
and was their:
"purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm" (to Rod) or did they:
"recklessly creat[e] a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm" with all that commotion?
Seems like the officers should be charged...
Posted by: Theodosius
|
May 10, 2007 11:14 AM
And how many times have you been driving along on a rainy day and you've noticed that the police car passing by does NOT have the headlights on,...as required by law when using the wipers during rain?
And I also am very disappointed that many of the police cars nowadays are ordered without blinkers. I rarely see them being used on police cars. Guess they don't need them?!
I shudder to think that I might get stopped and questioned just for mouthing to myself (with the window up) something about them and their pompous driving.
Unless there is more to the story, the citation to Rod Bryan is ridiculous.
Posted by: OdaMae
|
May 10, 2007 11:14 AM
Obviously he was committing number 5 on the list of offenses by obstructing traffic. Cyclists do it all the time and it is about time the law did something about it.
Posted by: Stump
|
May 10, 2007 11:24 AM
Newsflash, Stump. Bicycles *are* traffic.
Posted by: Theodosius
|
May 10, 2007 11:35 AM
Wow! what a mug shot! Rod's a good guy, weren't there any better pics of him that dont look like a police line up? irony.
Posted by: Arkansasfiddler
|
May 10, 2007 01:08 PM
Do we know who the cops were?
Posted by: RickBaber
|
May 10, 2007 01:36 PM
i wanna know why they decided to switch the paint jobs on the cruiser from a "friendly neighborly police officer" look to "big bad-ass militaristic robocop" look. who ordered that?
Posted by: t
|
May 10, 2007 01:49 PM
Theo,
Easy on the blood pressure...try rereading my comment with a sarcasm tinged tone.
Posted by: Stump
|
May 10, 2007 02:04 PM
T post 1:49,
Cost is the reason for the change from "Skyline" graphics to Black and White with text only.
Either the DemGaz or Times had a report on it 8 or 7 weeks ago.
Saves a couple thou a unit.
Posted by: Citizen home
|
May 10, 2007 02:14 PM
I agree with most of what silverback66 said regarding the merits of a sec. 1983 case. However, the case could be brought in federal court, where they tend to be a bit more vigilant in their protection of the constitution. Also, the police officer is only afforded qualified immunity. In order to overcome this immunity, Bryan would have to show that this was a breach of clearly established law at the time of the violation. Freedom of Speech is in the very first amendment to the constitution. It would be hard to find a clearly established law putting the cop on more notice than one's right to free speech.
Clearly all of the merits of a Sec. 1983 case are here. True, you can't get to the municipality because you could not likely show that his actions were in furtherance of a municipal custom policy or practice, but the police officer's immunity is out the window so he's on the hook for attorney's fees and the damages Bryan is out for lost time at work and what-not.
It's actionable. Go get em Rod.
Tax Payer
Posted by: Tax Payer
|
May 10, 2007 02:25 PM
Nobody likes cops until you need one.
Posted by: Cato
|
May 10, 2007 03:17 PM
Looks like Rod was done wrong, but I'm having a hard time understand how a cop traveling an estimated 80 mph was able to hear Bryan shout anything...
Posted by: The Academic
|
May 10, 2007 03:17 PM
It's not only in Arkansas. Click on Cato
Posted by: Cato
|
May 10, 2007 03:25 PM
...and more Nazi ideology and practice in Florida. Click on Cato
Posted by: Cato
|
May 10, 2007 03:27 PM
Don't some of the officers for LRPD have law degrees? There was a time that LRPD was one of the most educated police forces around, and I mean beyond Arkansas. Many had bachelor's, masters, and, as previously mentioned, law degrees. Have the all left or retired?
Posted by: Bubbette
|
May 10, 2007 03:33 PM
I have lived in this community about five years. I am out-and-about in my neighborhood extensively (in other words, not a couch potato). During my time here, I have seen a police officer in my neighborhood exactly twice. Clearly some of them need guidance on how best to prioritize their time. Also, the situation described above is just plain embarassing. Chief Johnson not only owes an apology to Rod, but also to the entire city.
Posted by: Nom De Plume
|
May 10, 2007 03:59 PM
Okay Stump, suggestions for future improvement:
[Cue sarcasm] : "Obviously he was committing number 5 on the list of offenses by obstructing traffic. Cyclists do it all the time and it is about time the law did something about it."
Or,
*Obviously* he was committing number 5 on the list of offenses by obstructing traffic. Cyclists do it all the time and it is about time the law did something about it. ;-)
Or,
Obviously he was committing number 5 on the list of offenses by obstructing traffic. Cyclists do it all the time and it is about d@## time the law did something about it. In fact, let's outlaw bicycles. Was he talking on a cell phone while riding it???
Maybe I'm just not good with subtlety, Stump.
Posted by: Theodosius
|
May 10, 2007 04:06 PM
How about just using an emoticon suitably suggestive of sarcasm? Such as :-s ...
Posted by: widj
|
May 10, 2007 04:26 PM
I knew Rod in college and I thought he was a breathe of fresh air in the Governor's race. He lives what he believes. I wish all our elected officials w ereas pure in intent as Rod. Ahh... one can dream of utopia now... even more vividly in midst of such hell.
Sorry the Po-Po messed with you, Rod. Musta been a sight to drive by and see. Too bad I don't travel that route to work anymore. Too bad AT photog Chilson wasn't around to capture the pretty picture.
Rod really ought to take the LRPD to task. I'm scared to think that this little situation in our LR bubble might be a glimspe of what living in a police state will be like. We're almost already there aren't we?
Oh, Gawd. I guess the end is near. It's an overwhelming feeling, to know that within my lifetime I'll see the fall of our poor, mislead civilation. But I digress...
Best of luck, Rod. Keep the faith, my brother.
Posted by: Country Girl
|
May 10, 2007 05:37 PM
Probably had overslept where he was "cooping" and was in a hurry to get back to the "cop shop" for shift change and used Rod's comment as his excuse for being late (over-sleeping).
There probably are good dedicated police officers on the LRPD. I just don't see them very often, but I do seem to see the others quite often!?
Posted by: docholliday
|
May 10, 2007 05:57 PM
Typical, but please don't buy that the reason for going to black and white is saving money, it actually costs more as you have to paint and mask two different colors. The usual reason for the b&w paint is intimidation.It is much cheaper to buy a white car and apply decals, ask any dealer who orders them ( and it's a "friendlier" color.)
Posted by: tigerpaw
|
May 10, 2007 11:22 PM
A lot of times (okay, most of the time) I feel like the Arkansas Blog is just focused on Max's pet subjects. Trashing Huckabee, trashing Roy Brooks (more lately) and trashing Tim Griffin (who probably deserves it) etc. And promotion of whatever crap Brummett has turned out in the midst of his latest hangover.
This is one entry I feel is justified. The LRPD has been notoriously corrupt for so long.
ARK. BLOG: Blind hog finds another acorn.
Posted by: Prouster
|
May 11, 2007 04:02 AM
What's with the Anti-McDaniel agenda? I'm not sure how he and his father relate to this at all.
Is Halter planning to challenge McDaniel in a primary now instead of Pryor? Because this kind of smarmy attack reminds me of the clowns Halter used to hire to troll this board.
Posted by: FreedomCounty
|
May 11, 2007 06:45 AM
Speeding state troopers are common on I-40. Once, during the commute, a state trooper flew past me at over 100 mph (I was doing a cautious 80) without lights or sirens. I called the state police and gave the officer the license number and asked why he was speeding. The officer replied with the suggestion that "Maybe you should pull him over and ask him."
Now when I am passed by a speeding trooper I just get in behind him and have my own personal escort. This makes the commute go by so much quicker.
Posted by: slydog
|
May 11, 2007 09:25 AM
Re: "I just get in behind him and have my own personal escort."
...that's kind of hard to do on a bicycle, especially after biking up 7th street hill. Check out the lack of medians...
Posted by: Roderick A. Bryan
|
May 11, 2007 10:03 AM
So who is in charge of the LR
cops?
City manager?
Any elected person?
Posted by: The Bold and The Blue
|
May 11, 2007 03:34 PM