Court decides officers didn’t have grounds to arrest man with ‘F— the Police’ shirt

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that officers did not have probable cause to arrest an Ohio man who wore a “F— the Police” shirt and cursed at the deputies during a county fair in 2016.

In the opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati ruled on First Amendment rights, arguing Michael Wood was protected under the Constitution and should not have been arrested on disorderly conduct charges, no matter how vulgar his speech.

“While Wood’s speech was profane, the circumstances did not create a situation where violence was likely to result,” the opinion read. “We therefore conclude that the First Amendment protected Wood’s speech and thus his disorderly conduct arrest lacked probable cause.”

Tuesday’s decision in the case of Wood Vs. Eubanks overturns a district court’s ruling in favor of the deputies, which granted summary judgement to the police because Wood’s speech was not protected. The appeals court ruling turns the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

David Carey, the deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio, which provided amcius support in the case, told The Hill the ruling “confirms that the First Amendment protects people’s right to criticize their government, including law enforcement, regardless of whether they go about it politely.”

“Crucially, the Sixth Circuit also confirmed that qualified immunity does not protect police when they disregard this particular right. People’s right to criticize their government, including in crude terms, is a necessary component of a free society,” Carey said in a statement. “A remedy when that right is violated is just as necessary. This decision confirms that people who suffer retaliation or arrest for criticizing their government will have a recourse in federal court.”

In July 2016, Wood attended a fair in Clark County, a jurisdiction nestled between Dayton and Columbus, wearing the “F– the police shirt.” Deputies noticed the shirt and commented on it, but did not take action until someone called 911 about the t-shirt’s message, according to court documents.

According to court documents, deputies Jacob Shaw, Mario Troutman, and Matthew Yates approached Wood two separate times about the shirt. On the second incident, they were joined by three more deputies, Joseph Johnson, Chad Eubanks and Cherish Steiger, and the officers persuaded Wood to leave the fairgrounds.

But an argument ensued near the exit gate, and Wood eventually shouted: “Do you know what the legal definition of battery is, [expletive]? Then try to find out,” which led to the officers arresting him for disorderly conduct.

Wood, who maintains he had a constitutional right to wear the shirt, filed a lawsuit for false arrest and retaliation.

“Because there was no probable cause to arrest Wood for his conduct, and because Wood’s right to be free from arrest was clearly established, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity,” the opinion reads. “In the absence of any evidence that Wood was unreasonably loud, there was no probable cause to arrest Wood for his profanities alone.”

Among other cases, the court cited the case of Henry v. City of Flint as precedent. In that case, a Michigan man was arrested for a profanity-laced verbal dispute with an officer. In 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied summary judgement to the officer.

Ben Hunt, a spokesperson for the Clark County Sheriff’s Office, said it disapproves of the ruling and that “the deputies in this case acted reasonably and appropriately after Mr. Wood went on a hostile, profanity laced tirade in the middle of the Clark County Fair.”

“The District Court judge appropriately recognized that the actions of the deputies were consistent with forty years of Ohio case law. It is disappointing that the Sixth Circuit disregarded the decisions of Ohio’s courts and their interpretation of an Ohio statute,” Hunt told The Hill in a statement. “Even if the Ohio courts have wrongly interpreted Ohio’s disorderly conduct statute, how would officers, who are not lawyers, know that they should disregard the decisions of state courts?”

—Updated at 5:41 p.m.