Giving a police officer the middle finger and shouting obscenities at him or her isn’t illegal, even when it occurs near a church picnic, but struggling with the cops and taking a swing at an ambulance attendant is a definite no-no, a state Superior Court panel has ruled.
That pretty much sums up the win-loss opinion Judge Judith Ference Olson issued in the court’s opinion on the appeal of Todd Dixon.
Dixon was convicted of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest for a bizarre incident outside a church picnic in Lackawanna County in August 2016. He was sentenced to 18 months of probation for the crimes.
On appeal, Dixon, 59, of Clarks Summit, claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him of either crime. Olson found the resisting arrest conviction is solid, but that the disorderly conduct conviction must be tossed because of his cursing and gestures toward the cop.
According to police, Dixon’s trip to court began when he flipped the bird and began cursing at an officer who was directing traffic outside the church event.
The officer testified that after Dixon mouthed the words “(expletive) you” at him, he told Dixon, “Sir, that’s not very professional. This is a family establishment and that would constitute disorderly conduct, don’t do that.”
Things went downhill from there. The cop claimed Dixon came at him cursing and then vigorously resisted arrest. The officer said Dixon started yelling louder when Dixon’s wife came over and began recording the incident on her phone.
Later, when he was placed in an ambulance, Dixon tried to punch an EMT, police said.
Olson concluded Dixon’s disorderly conduct conviction must be voided because his language and gestures didn’t have an obscene sexual connotation.
“The evidence demonstrates that (Dixon) communicated multiple profanities to (the) officer. However, giving a person the middle finger and telling a person ‘(expletive) you’ in an antagonistic manner does not describe sexual conduct and does not appeal to anyone’s prurient interest,” Olson wrote.
She cited an earlier state court ruling where a disorderly conduct conviction was tossed for a person who shouted “(Expletive) the police” during the funeral procession for a fallen officer.
Dixon’s resisting arrest conviction is another matter, Olson concluded. She rejected Dixon’s claim that the police had no cause to arrest him in the first place. She agreed with a county judge that Dixon’s actions caused a disturbance that put pedestrians at risk by impeding police from controlling traffic in the crosswalk near the church even.
Even though her court ultimately overturned his disorderly conduct conviction, police had probable cause at the time to arrest Dixon “for any number of crimes,” Olson found.
Nor did Dixon’s contention that his arrest violated his free speech rights gain any traction with the state judges. “Simply stated, (Dixon’s) aggressive actions in this case threatened to “incite an immediate breach of the peace” and, thus, went far beyond the limits of what the First Amendment protects,” Olson wrote.