I’m not sure why Justice Alito is worried that the might write a “citation for driving 30 miles an hour in a 20-25 mile an hour zone.” In the example case, the person is clearly breaking the law, so the police have every right to ticket him.
And yes, I would be annoyed for being pulled over for just 5 mph over the limit.
In my neck of the woods, they don’t even twitch a whisker if you’re 5 over or under. Unless you’re in a school zone.
But don’t wanna be annoyed...don’t speed, don’t litter, feed the dang meter, etc.
Jeez, what is with some people. Just obey the dang laws.
Regardless as to whether or not the driver would be breaking the law by going 30 in a 25 MPH zone (and the law is not as clear as you might think*), the point is whether or not fear of police reprisals could intimidate free speech. If there are 100 people speeding, and the police ticket only one of them, it doesn’t matter much whether 99% of 100% of the people get away with breaking the law; it matters far more whether than 1% opens himself up to selective prosecution. Also consider that stopping someone for a speeding infraction can serve as justifications for all sorts of other “discovery.”
* In some states, you can be ticketed for driving below the speed of the flow of the traffic, even if you are going at the speed limit. In other states, you can be ticketed for driving in the left lane if you are not passing a car in the right lane and the fact that you are driving no faster than the speed limit is grounds for saying you had no intention of passing of the car in the left lane is not going substantially below the speed limit.
Later, Bartlett filed a lawsuit against Nieves and Weight in the Alaska District Court. Among Bartletts 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 Bartletts 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 Courts ruling except on the false arrest charge.[1] The judges argued that Bartletts 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 ones arrest voided any retaliatory arrest claims that could be made. While the Supreme Court reversed this decision, it was primarily due to the Riveria Beachs 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 Circuits 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