Supreme Court rules against Alaska man in free speech case

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday against an Alaska resident in a case that gives law enforcement officers significant protection from people who want to sue and claim they were arrested in retaliation for something they said or wrote.

In an opinion , the justices said that because the officers had probable cause to arrest Russell Bartlett, his lawsuit fails.

Bartlett was arrested in 2014 at Arctic Man, an annual, weeklong winter sports festival that draws thousands to the remote Hoodoo Mountains near Paxton, Alaska. In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts described the festival as “an event known for both extreme sports and extreme alcohol consumption.”

“The mainstays are high-speed ski and snowmobile races, bonfires, and parties,” he wrote, adding that for that week the “campground briefly becomes one of the largest and most raucous cities in Alaska.”

Bartlett was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after exchanging words with two troopers investigating underage drinking during the event. Officers said they arrested Bartlett, who had been drinking, because he initiated a physical confrontation by standing close to one of the troopers and speaking in a loud voice.

The charges against Bartlett were ultimately dismissed, but Bartlett sued claiming his arrest was retaliation for comments he made to the officers.

The court rejected Bartlett’s argument, ruling that when officers have probable cause for an arrest, the person who was arrested generally can’t sue and argue that their arrest was retaliation. Roberts wrote that if Bartlett’s arguments were to prevail “policing certain events like an unruly protest would pose overwhelming litigation risks.”

“Any inartful turn of phrase or perceived slight during a legitimate arrest could land an officer in years of litigation,” Roberts wrote.

The court did add one qualification to its ruling. The justices gave the example of a person who has been complaining about police conduct who is arrested for jaywalking, which rarely results in an arrest. The justices said in a case like that, if the person can prove that he was arrested when other jaywalkers had not been, he could move forward with a retaliatory arrest lawsuit.

One of Bartlett’s attorneys, Kerri Barsh, said she was disappointed with the outcome for her client. But she said she was pleased the court acknowledged there was at least a narrow category of cases where the fact that probable cause exists doesn’t close the door to lawsuits. “The facts mean a lot in these cases,” she said.

Bartlett had been supported by numerous First Amendment and media organizations, including The Associated Press. The case is Nieves v. Bartlett, 17-1174.

One would think, but the Ninth Circuit...

At the 2014 event, Robert Bartlett was one of the spectators, having brought his recreational vehicle along with a keg of beer. State trooper Sergeant Luis Nieves approached Bartlett, who was visibly intoxicated, and requested that he stow the keg in his RV, but Bartlett refused to acknowledge the trooper; as there was no legal issue with having the keg outside the RV, nor any cause to suspect criminal activity, Nieves continued his route. Later, a younger man was approached by trooper Bryce Weight, who believed the man was underage and should not be drinking. Bartlett overheard this, and approached the two, telling the younger man that he didn’t have to answer the trooper’s question, as well as loudly instructing Weight to leave the younger man alone. After additional confrontation, Weight pushed Bartlett away, leading to Bartlett becoming physically aggressive. Nieves came by quickly to help Nieves subdue Bartlett, and arrested him on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, but these were never followed through due to budgetary concerns. Bartlett spent some hours in a drunk tank before he was released.

Later, Bartlett filed a lawsuit against Nieves and Weight in the Alaska District Court. Among Bartlett’s charges were that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned, claiming that after Nieves had apprehended him, he told him that “Bet you wish you would have talked to me now.” However, evidence from partial body cameras worn by the troopers did not include the aforementioned statement. The District Court made summary judgement against all of Bartlett’s claims and closed the case with prejudice, concluding that Nieves had probable cause to make the arrest, and thus disallowing for Bartlett to make a retaliatory arrest claim, as established in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to civil action for deprivation of rights.

Bartlett took the case to the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court. There, the three-judge panel agreed with the District Court’s ruling except on the false arrest charge.[1] The judges argued that Bartlett’s claimed quote from Nieves could be read that Nieves had arrested him for not willingly speaking to him earlier, putting into question the probable cause.[1] The Ninth Circuit thus ruled that even if Nieves had probably cause, Bartlett could seek a retaliatory arrest claim based on his First Amendment rights.[2]

This created a split decision in the Circuit Courts. The Supreme Court had heard the case of Lozman v. Riviera Beach (Docket 17-21), which had been brought up through the Eleventh Circuit, which found that the existence of probable cause in one’s arrest voided any retaliatory arrest claims that could be made. While the Supreme Court reversed this decision, it was primarily due to the Riveria Beach’s specific laws in question that appeared to be designed harass the civilian, and not on the broader question of how probable cause and retaliatory arrest claims interacted. Prior, the Supreme Court had ruled in Hartman v. Moore that to be able to claim on retaliatory prosecution, the onus was on the petitioner to prove that there was no probable causes that could be assigned by the prosecutors, judges and juries.[3] The Nieves case is recognized as a different situation than Hartman as instead of having to question the results from prolonged legal evaluation, Nieves asks the question related to the on-the-spot judgement call made by an officer.[2]

Nieves and Weight petitioned for writ of certaorari to the Supreme Court in February 2018, and the Court accepted the case, with oral hearings given on November 26, 2018. Observers to the oral hearing found the Justices concerned on how to develop a proper standard to determine when an arrest can be considered retaliatory; Justice Samuel Alito considered that it would be difficult to set a metric between two extreme cases: that of a man yelling at an officer in a heated setting, and that of a person critical of their local government being arrested on a minor traffic violation.[4]

The Court issued its decision on May 28, 2019, reversing and remanding the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The 8-1 decision, with only Justice Sotomayor fullly dissenting, determined that in general, the presence of a probably cause for an arrest defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim.[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nieves_v._Bartlett

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.