Police Arrest Man For Refusing To Tweet

RichZellich writes "Police arrested a senior vice president from Island Def Jam Records, saying he hindered their crowd-control efforts by not cooperating. The crowd at a mall where Justin Bieber was appearing got out of control, and police wanted the man to send a tweet asking for calm; he refused and they arrested him on a felony assault charge 'for putting people in danger.'"

Comments

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[shutdown -p now]

obstructing government administration

Wow. The fact that you can even be charged for something as vague and open to interpretation as that is scary regardless of the context.

Re:How would that work

[dintlu]

What gives the police the right to compel a person to say or do anything?

The way I see it, the police know this exec is going to walk away with a clean record- after all, he's done nothing wrong. The consequence of this mess is that the average person will be more likely to comply when an illegal demand is made by the police, because the average person can't afford the same legal representation as a corporate executive.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[shutdown -p now]

I am of the opinion that laws should at least attempted to be written in such a way that they are parseable and understandable by mere mortals. I understand the need for unambiguous legalese, but in this case the title of the law is clearly misleading.

Anyway, looking at the law itself, I do not see how it applies here:

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function...

Okay, now the specific conditions follow:

by means of intimidation, physical force or interference

Doesn't apply.

by means of any independently unlawful act

Doesn't apply.

by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service

Doesn't apply.

by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

Doesn't apply. In fact, it is perfectly clear and obvious to any sane person - which should, presumably, include police (I sure hope they're sane when on duty!) - that none of those points can apply to this man. I'm not sure, perhaps what he did is indeed grounds for arrest under the laws as written, just not this one.

Re:How would that work

[tomhudson]

You're obligated to comply with a lawful order from a police officer. Failing to do so is unlawful. So if the cop says,"tell them to leave [because you've created a dangerous situation by being here]" you'd better comply, or you'll get sent down. Just because they told him to do it with twitter makes no difference.

You're obliged to comply with a lawful order: true

You're obliged to order others to comply with a lawful order (specifically wrt communications): false

The due process clause of th 14th amendment makes it clear that the 1st amendment applies to state and local government (which includes the police). Freedom of speech equally means you can't be ordered to say something. They can order you to leave. They can't order you to tell others to leave.

Re:How would that work

[tverbeek]

But "Tell them to leave" is not a lawful order from a police officer. The police do not have the legal authority to order you to say anything. They can ask you to, just like they can ask you to let them search your house, or ask you to confess to a crime, but that's not an order.

Re:How would that work

[KC7JHO]

You are incorrect. The 5th amendment guaranties you the right to not be forced to incriminate your self. The Officer was asking him to peacefully disperse a mob that he had caused to gather. This is not only a lawful request but a prudent one. The use of twitter is of no consequence except that it was the mobs chosen means of communication. It would have been the same if they were all using hand held radios.

Re:How would that work

[dondelelcaro]

The Officer was asking him to peacefully disperse a mob that he had caused to gather.

So, you think that he should admit that he caused [a mob] to gather (that is, incited a riot) by trying to get them to disperse?

Thanks, but I'll be talking to my attorney first.