Article content continued

So he pulled her over again, the opinion said, and changed the ticket to reflect the more serious violation of speeding.

Fits of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the golden rule, but that doesn't make them illegal

Those were two separate traffic stops — a key point in this case. The judges found that the first stop was justified because Cruise-Gulyas had committed an infraction. But they added that “any authority to seize her in connection with that infraction ended when the first stop concluded,” meaning that the second stop, apparently in response to nothing more than a vulgar gesture, was not justified.

Cruise-Gulyas claimed in a lawsuit that Minard violated the First Amendment, by retaliating against her because of protected speech; the Fourth Amendment, because of the unreasonable seizure; and the 14th Amendment, for restricting her liberty.

In response, Minard argued for “qualified immunity,” a legal doctrine that can protect officials from lawsuits if they can show that the rights they violated were not clearly established; essentially, that they were acting in good faith.

But a district court denied that motion, and the appeals court did the same in its decision last week. So, it has been affirmed: Raising your middle finger to a police officer is your First Amendment right.

Or rather, it has been affirmed again. There are at least two earlier cases in which federal courts made similar decisions.

In 2013, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided against qualified immunity for a police officer who had arrested a teenage girl after she raised two middle fingers in front of him. The girl’s mother had been killed by police a few years earlier. Also in 2013, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided that an officer should not have been granted qualified immunity after he arrested a man who had raised a middle finger while passing by in a car. The officer had followed the car, and a verbal confrontation had ended in the man’s arrest.