Recent federal court decisions have taken a dim
view of the state’s R.S.
14:122, which begins “Public intimidation is the use of violence, force, or
threats upon any of the following persons, with the intent to influence his
conduct in relation to his position, employment, or duty … Public officer or public employee.” It has good
intentions, to prevent discouraging such officials from carrying out their duties.
However, it goes overboard as its language can
apply to citizens expressing their rights to hold public servants accountable
for their actions. In two recent cases, federal courts have registered strong
reservations about overbroad application regarding police behavior, refusing to
side with government when it has issued citations utilizing this law.
In a case where a federal judge has struck down the arrest of someone under this statute, Landry has appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court ruled that the law could criminalize lawful behavior under the Constitution, even as it also would apply to actual threats outside the First Amendment’s protection.
Landry points to the necessity of the law in
preventing the use of influence to gain preferential treatment. A related brief
argues the act of trying to influence officials away from carrying out their duties,
not the words themselves, is this issue at hand.
Yet surely defenders of it must realize that the
law cannot silence the public’s right to give notice that they may dispute an
official’s actions. Reminding them that their exercise of governmental power
will face scrutiny helps ensure that officials do not abuse their powers. As
written, officials can use the statute to intimidate citizens from bringing to
light potential illegitimate behavior by government employees.
And government doesn’t need the law to protect
public officials doing their jobs when faced with genuine threats of harm.
Witness intimidation and resisting arrest statutes, among others, can do the
trick.
When the Gov. John Bel Edwards Administration
launched the opioid lawsuit, Landry may have felt it necessary to intervene in
order to rein in pursuit of jackpot justice, directing legal efforts in a more
productive direction. In this instance, he should not bother with backing up
overly-sensitive law enforcement personnel.
Legislators can help clarify matters as well. If
they want to maintain the law’s constitutionality, they should add a provision to
it stating it does not apply to individuals asserting they intend to raise
questions about the legitimacy of the act that could result in penalties levied
against the official, even if those under investigation or arrest use excitable
and bombastic language to do so.
Otherwise, lawmakers should dump it. We need not
have laws that discourage citizens from reminding officials of accountability,
which can stop government abuse before it happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment