In Nieves v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court got the right result, but wrongly so
by Adam Carrington
May 29, 2019 01:46 PM When can a police arrest violate your right to freedom of speech? That was the issue before the Supreme Court in an opinion they released on Tuesday, Nieves v. Bartlett.
You can imagine how it could. No one wants to get arrested. If police don’t like what you say, they might use detention to retaliate against that speech. The ramifications are both pervasive and pernicious. Consider an officer arresting you for asking to see a search warrant; or, detaining you because he disagrees with your declared opinion about abortion, immigration, or local zoning ordinances. Such circumstances would punish speech, dissuading people in the future from voicing their opinions.
Russell Bartlett accused two Alaska police officers of such a retaliatory arrest, suing them for damages under a federal law that allows such litigation when state officers violate a person’s federal rights. In 2014, Bartlett was attending “Artic Man,†an event held in Alaska known, the court noted, “for both extreme sports and extreme alcohol consumption.†Late on the event’s final night, Bartlett had several interactions with two Alaskan police officers, Luis Nieves and Bryce Weight. These interactions ended in Bartlett’s arrest for disorderly conduct.
<..snip..>
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/in-nieves-v-bartlett-the-supreme-court-got-the-right-result-but-wrongly-so