Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
NewsCut
Bob Collins

Court: Cop can’t stop driver for flipping him off

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was short and to the point in ruling this week that giving the finger to a cop is free speech and you can't be pulled over for doing so.

"Fits of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the Golden Rule. But that doesn’t make them illegal or for that matter punishable or for that matter grounds for a seizure," Judge Stuart Sutton wrote on behalf of the panel, which ruled in the case of Debra Cruise-Gulyas, who was stopped by officer Matthew Minard in Taylor, Mich., for speeding.

Minard gave Cruise-Gulyas a break, writing her up under a less serious infraction.

Let's let Judge Sutton tell the story from here...

As she drove away, Cruise-Gulyas repaid Minard’s kindness by raising her middle finger at him. Minard pulled Cruise-Gulyas over a second time, less than 100 yards from where the initial stop occurred, and amended the ticket to a speeding violation.

In his opinion this week, Judge Sutton said the probable cause to pull the woman over ended after she got the first ticket. That makes the case a question of whether making "an all-too-familiar gesture at Minard with her hand and without four of her fingers showing," as Sutton described it, is an infraction.

It's crude; it's not criminal, the judge said in ruling that her lawsuit for violating her rights can go forward.

As alleged, the first stop had ended, a constitutionally significant event, before the officer initiated the second, unjustified stop. The Supreme Court has said that any justification for the first stop ceases when that stop ends.

These facts more closely resemble a prosecutor who tries to revoke a defendant’s deal a few days after everyone has agreed to it or a judge who hauls the defendant back into court a week or two after imposing a sentence based on the defendant’s after-the-fact speech.

Those examples seem more problematic and more in keeping with today’s decision. Minard, in short, clearly had no proper basis for seizing Cruise-Gulyas a second time.