Manhattan Judge rules screaming obsceneties at LEO's is against the law

**Terminator** · 08-31-06, 12:07 AM

Screaming an anatomically impossible obscene suggestion at a police officer is against the law, a Manhattan judge has decided.

The quirky ruling, made public yesterday, concerns the case of Brooklynite Ramon Morena, who is charged with creating a public disturbance by shouting "Go f - - - yourself" at a cop in the Theater District in March.

Morena's lawyer had tried to convince the judge that civilians enjoy a First Amendment right to criticize and verbally challenge police officers. The charges, he argued, should therefore be thrown out of court.

But Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Richard Weinberg didn't buy it. If you're disorderly, you're disorderly, the judge wrote - and there is no "police officer exemption" to the rule.

Morena now faces up to 15 days jail if found guilty of disorderly conduct.

"He's still maintaining that whatever conduct they're going to allege does not rise to the charge - and there was no public disturbance," his lawyer, David Bruce Rankin, said.

According to the summons against him, Morena was standing on the northeast corner of West 45th Street and Eighth Avenue at 11:21 on a Friday night, arguing with an unidentified woman.

When the police officer approached, Morena allegedly screamed, "Go f - - - yourself. F - - - you, cop," the summons said.

Morena was issued a summons on the spot for disorderly conduct, defined by law as conduct that causes - or creates a risk of - public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. Morena's screaming at the cop annoyed or alarmed the general public, the summons charges.

But any alleged screaming would be merely "a private annoyance" limited to the cop, the defense lawyer argued - and as such should have rolled off the officer's back.

The judge countered, "To adopt defendant's arguments would be to effectively carve out a police-officer exception from the disorderly conduct statute and to condone the heaping of verbal abuse upon a police officer regardless of the circumstances. This the court will not do."

The case goes back before the judge on Sept. 5.

**cntryboy0531** · 08-31-06, 02:19 AM

Damn, I wish all judges would agree on that.

**conalabu** · 08-31-06, 06:07 AM

What? It is wrong for cops to get abused verbally? No kidding?

**ghost98** · 08-31-06, 11:50 AM

WOW!!!! nyc cops are use to that kind of language, but what they do about it is a different story .. it all how you word it.

**CountyFourteen** · 08-31-06, 04:15 PM

yup, "fighting words" do not apply to the police here........

**dlefdal** · 08-31-06, 04:39 PM

Nor here, but oh well. I did cite somebody for flipping me off once in a car. I was able to get him for improper use of hand signals. He took me to court and he lost.

Made the local papers too!

**timatoe127** · 08-31-06, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by dlefdal

Nor here, but oh well. I did cite somebody for flipping me off once in a car. I was able to get him for improper use of hand signals. He took me to court and he lost.

Made the local papers too!

Now that's fricking awesome

**Dinosaur32** · 09-01-06, 11:38 AM

The judge wisely did not rule against the defendant for his language towards the cop........it was his conduct (including the language used and the volume) that caused alarm to the public. The judge was rightfully upholding the public's right not to be unduly alarmed by som,eone acting like an EDP. the officer was able to articulate the threat caused by the defendant to good public order. The key is always articulation of the offensive conduct.