In the heat of a parking dispute, an angry citizen raised his middle finger to a police officer and was cited for obscene gestures and vulgar language. The man is now suing for damages claiming his gestures and profanities were protected under the First Amendment. -DB
Pittsburgh TRIBUNE-REVIEW
September 7, 2009
By Brian Bowling
A federal jury this week will hear a Regent Square man’s claims that Pittsburgh police routinely violate people’s right to free speech by citing them for obscene gestures and vulgar language.
A city police officer cited David Hackbart, 34, for disorderly conduct in April 2006 after he angrily raised his middle finger to another driver and then the officer during a Squirrel Hill parking dispute.
Prosecutors eventually dropped the charge, but Hackbart sued in federal court. He claims fighting the charge cost him $590 in court fees, lost wages and round-trip airfare from Tampa. He’s asking the court to award him those costs plus unspecified punitive damages against the officer and the city.
U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone ruled in March that Hackbart’s gesture falls under the protection of the Constitution and police Sgt. Brian Elledge violated Hackbart’s civil rights by issuing the citation.
“Hackbart, in this instance, was expressing his frustration and anger when he gestured with his middle finger to both the driver behind him and to Elledge,” Cercone wrote. “Both gestures are protected expressions under the First Amendment, unless they fall within a narrowly limited category of unprotected speech such as obscene speech or fighting words.”
The judge said a jury would have to decide whether the city failed to adequately train and supervise its officers on First Amendment issues. The jury also will determine what damages Hackbart can recover from the city and the officer.
The trial is scheduled to start Tuesday.
Lawyers for Hackbart and the city couldn’t be reached for comment Friday.
The jury is expected to hear testimony regarding 188 citations Pittsburgh police issued from 2005 through 2007. Hackbart contends the citations are comparable to the one he received and show the police have a pattern of violating free speech rights.
The city contends it adequately trains its officers on First Amendment issues and isn’t responsible for Elledge’s decision to cite Hackbart.
The city asked the judge to exclude any citation for conduct different from behavior Hackbart exhibited on April 10, 2006. Cercone denied the request. He said in his ruling that he will have to decide individually the relevance of each citation to Hackbart’s claim.
Copyright 2009 Tribune-Review Publishing Co.