|
"Contempt of cop" is law enforcement jargon in the United States for behavior by people towards law enforcement officers that the officers perceive as disrespectful or insufficiently deferential to their authority.〔Baruch et al., (140 ).〕〔Walker, (55 ).〕〔Steverson, (300 ).〕 It is a play on the phrase ''contempt of court'', and not an actual offense. The phrase is associated with unlawful arbitrary arrest and detention of individuals, often for expressing or exercising rights guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution. Contempt of cop is often discussed in connection to police misconduct such as use of excessive force or even police brutality〔Lawrence, (48 ).〕 as a reaction to perceived disrespectful behavior〔Walker, (52 ).〕 rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.〔Collins, (51 )〕 Arrests for contempt of cop may stem from a type of "occupational arrogance" when a police officer thinks his or her authority cannot or should not be challenged or questioned. From such officers' perspective, contempt of cop may involve perceived or actual challenges to their authority, including a lack of deference (such as disobeying instructions,〔Shapiro, (119 ).〕 or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer).〔 Fleeing from the police is sometimes considered a variant of contempt of cop.〔Walker, (153 ).〕 Contempt of cop situations may be exacerbated if other officers witness the allegedly contemptuous behavior. Charges such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer may be cited as official reasons in a contempt of cop arrest.〔 Obstructing a police officer or failure to obey a police order is also cited in arrests in some jurisdictions, particularly as a stand-alone charge without any other charges brought.〔 ==Legality== Freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, so non-threatening verbal "abuse" of a police officer is not in itself criminal behavior,〔 〕〔 Writing for the Court in ''(City of Houston v. Hill )'', , Justice Brennan said, "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." — 482 U.S. 451, at 463〕〔 In ''(Duran v. City of Douglas )'', 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Circuit, 1990) the Court held that giving a police officer the "finger" was protected speech. Writing for the Court, Judge Kozinski said, "But disgraceful as Duran's behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime."〕 though some courts have disagreed on what constitutes protected speech in this regard.〔 Some lower courts have considered certain speech to constitute fighting words. See, e.g., .〕〔In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court, without ruling on the merits, allowed to stand a Montana Supreme Court ruling that unprovoked profane utterances to a county deputy constituted fighting words. See:〕 The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1942 that fighting words that "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected speech, but later cases have interpreted this narrowly, especially in relation to law enforcement officers.〔 In ''(United States v. Poocha )'', 259 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001), Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the 2-1 majority that, "criticism of the police, profane or otherwise, is not a crime."〕 In 2013, a federal appeals court ruled that giving the finger "alone cannot establish probable cause to believe a disorderly conduct violation has occurred".〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57561978/ny-court-flipping-finger-at-cops-not-worth-arrest/ )〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Contempt of cop」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|