State v. Crawley, Minn.Ct.App., 9/28/10. Ms. Crawley filed a report of police misconduct, asserting that an officer forged her signature on a medical release to obtain her medical records. When a nurse said that she had seen Ms. Crawley sign the release, the state charged her with falsely reporting police misconduct and falsely reporting a crime. Falsely reporting misconduct is:
Whoever informs, or causes information to be communicated to, a peace officer, whose responsibilities include investigating or reporting police misconduct, that a peace officer . . . has committed an act of police misconduct, knowing that the information is false, is guilty of a crime . . . .
Ms. Crawley argued that this statute was “viewpoint discrimination” because it only criminalized false statements that criticize police. The appellate court points out that making a false statement that attempts to absolve a police officer of misconduct would not be punishable under this statute. That makes prosecution turn on content, which you can’t do. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, (1992):
Minn. Stat. § 609.505, subd. 2 criminalizes knowingly communicating false information regarding police only when that communication alleges misconduct. Because the distinction between false critical information and false exonerating information discriminates based on the viewpoint of the speaker and does not fit under a recognized exception to content discrimination, this subdivision of the statute violates the First Amendment.
There was a vigorous dissent by Judge Harten. The case is presently pending the state’s request for review by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment