09-01-2006, 02:42 AM
NYC Judges Rules Cursing at Officers Against the Law
Updated: August 30th, 2006 03:28 PM EDT
E-mail Story Print Story Most Read Most Emailed
LAURA ITALIANO
Courtesy of The New York Post
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.
laura.italiano@nypost.com
Republished with permission of The New York Post.
Updated: August 30th, 2006 03:28 PM EDT
E-mail Story Print Story Most Read Most Emailed
LAURA ITALIANO
Courtesy of The New York Post
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.
laura.italiano@nypost.com
Republished with permission of The New York Post.