US Supreme Court Has Dispecable Ruling on Dick Cheney Antiwar Protester

[nbruno322]

httx://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-backs-secret-service-arrest-of-man-confronting-cheney-20120604,0,5913692.story


The justices said citizens are not protected from a “retaliatory arrest” if police or federal agents have probable cause to take the person into custody.

In the Cheney case, a judge said the agents had reason to arrest Steven Howards, the protester, because he had bumped the vice president.

“This court has never recognized a First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause,” said Justice Clarence Thomas.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Better than getting shot in the face while hunting

 

[sailingaway]

well, I don't know what constituted the 'bump' but physical interaction is different than just speech.

 

[Titus]

That's not a despicable opinion. This is a civil lawsuit which means the actions of the officers must violate "clearly established law". The police have had the authority to arrest if they have probable cause. If the agents lacked probable cause, then the lawsuit goes forward. Based only on the article, I would not have found probable cause. Hearing someone may have threatened the VP does not equal probable cause to me. However, that issue was not before the court and not enough facts were in the article for that reason.

If the person was threatening the VP, that is far from protected speech. Therefore, this wouldn't qualify as arresting for his opinion anyway. The court should not have taken this case unless the court below got it wrong.