A federal judge has ruled that a ticked-off motorist who was arrested for calling the upstate hamlet of Liberty “tyranny” and writing a few choice epithets on a speeding ticket can sue the village and recover damages from the prosecutor for violating his right to spout off. This arrest violated the First Amendment, according to a decision handed down last week by a federal judge.
Advertisement
The incident occurred when Barboza was caught speeding through Liberty in Upstate New York.
“Fuck your town, bitches” is exactly what William Barboza wrote on his payment form after pleading guilty for a speeding ticket in 2012.
The NYCLU and attorney Stephen Bergstein of Bergstein & Ullrich, LLP, lead counsel on the case, contended that the prosecutor and the police officers – sworn to uphold and enforce the law – had violated Barboza’s First Amendment rights and also contended that the Village of Liberty was liable for failing to train law enforcement to respect the First Amendment. He also replaced the town’s name with the word “Tyranny“.
Barboza was handcuffed and taken away before his release on a $200 bail.
Seibel also ruled Liberty will have to stand trial for failing to train its police officers regarding the country’s First Amendment. When Barboza came to Liberty, he was arrested by two police officers on orders of the district attorney on a charge of “aggravated harassment”, handcuffed and held for hours.
The charges against Barboza were dropped a year later by a different judge, who conveniently bolstered Barboza’s eventual lawsuit by writing that “no citation is necessary for this Court to determine that the language under the circumstances here, offensive as it is, is protected”.
Lawyers for the village didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment Tuesday.
Upon receiving Barboza’s profanity-laced ticket payment form in the mail, Liberty refused to accept his money.
Barboza’s attorneys argued that officials in Liberty had seriously misinterpreted New York’s aggravated harassment statute. She admitted Barboza’s phrase was crude and offensive, but it “did not convey an imminent threat and was made in the context of complaining about government activity”.
Advertisement
“The words here are not inherently likely to provoke violent reaction, they were not directed at anyone in particular, and could not be interpreted as threatening any particular action”, the Huffington Post reports Seibel as saying.
