Nashville Singer arrested for cussing TN Mayor and Cop! Mumford Law Interview with Owen Vollendroff

Ajouté : 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]I have it on recording. I've got your statement. I've got their statement.

[00:00:03]This is wonderful. I appreciate it, Mayor. And you guys are just [ __ ] liars. I appreciate it.

[00:00:08]>> I appreciate it.

[00:00:10]>> I will. We the people. This is a public space.

[00:00:14]>> One more time.

[00:00:15]>> Freedom of speech. You are not going to overstep my right to speech.

[00:00:18]>> You're not going to be disrespectful.

[00:00:19]>> You can kiss my ass.

[00:00:23]>> Freedom of speech.

[00:00:26]>> Come here.

[00:00:27]>> Freedom of speech.

[00:00:28]>> Stop. Stop.

[00:00:29]I didn't do anything wrong.

[00:00:31]>> What are you [ __ ] doing, dude?

[00:00:34]>> Freedom of speech.

[00:00:37]>> What are you doing?

[00:00:38]>> This is Roland Mumford with Mumford.Llaw. I'm interviewing somebody today named Owen Volandro. Owen, did I say that correctly?

[00:00:46]>> Uh, so Volandro, funny enough, is actually pronounced Volandorf. The R and the O are flipped upon pronunciation, but everyone says Volandro.

[00:00:53]>> Excellent. And you're actually near me here in Tennessee. We were both at just outside of Nashville. Is that correct?

[00:01:01]>> Yes, that is.

[00:01:01]>> And we're And are you in Greenbryer?

[00:01:03]>> Yes, I am.

[00:01:04]>> Excellent. Is that where you live?

[00:01:06]>> That is.

[00:01:06]>> And the reason that we're doing this interview today is because you reached out to me and you had an issue with a water department in Greenbryer, Tennessee. Is that correct?

[00:01:16]>> That is correct. And right before that we started this interview, I usually play a clip of the video as sort of the hook and to get the public's attention where you were basically arrested for and what I would refer to as free speech retaliation. Is that what you're contending?

[00:01:33]>> That is 100% correct.

[00:01:35]>> And are you contending that you were arrested by there were two officers that I see in the video. One I believe is he a deputy chief allen? That's what I see the name on the shirt. Does that sound correct?

[00:01:48]>> That's uh Kurt Allen, the client here on the affidavit for my arrest.

[00:01:53]>> And I believe he's the is he the deputy chief of the Greenbryer Police?

[00:01:56]>> I uh so yeah, it says I deputy chief Allen was called on to the Greenbryer City Hall. Yes, deputy chief.

[00:02:03]>> And and then there was another gentleman with the blonde hair who was another officer sort of standing behind the mayor. Is that correct?

[00:02:10]>> There was quite a few different officers. I had to go to the doctor, which I have my wristband for, for the injuries that the officers.

[00:02:18]>> So, what what I was uh getting at is there were multiple officers later in the video, but you go inside the I guess is that the Green Bryer City Hall? Is that the building?

[00:02:29]>> Yes, it is.

[00:02:30]>> Okay. And the issue that started all this was that you had a water bill problem, something about 90,000 gallons.

[00:02:37]Just tell me about that and then kind of how that leads up to where the mayor comes in and then you see the two officers, the deputy chief and the blonde officer come in and that's where I'm referring to about the two officers.

[00:02:51]If you can take me up to that point and then as you walk out, you're then exercising free speech. You're using some explicitives cussing at the mayor or the officers and you were leaving and then there's some off and then they follow you out. they to arrest you and then there's some additional officers that arrive on scene. Is that just kind of the quick summary?

[00:03:13]>> That is a a pretty decent quick summary of what happened. I called over to the water department.

[00:03:19]>> So now and now if you can take us from there, but I just kind of wanted to give the the nutshell for the audience and now take me tell us what happened. Give me your narrative.

[00:03:27]>> Absolutely. So, I called over to the water department uh requesting for the documentation for my water meter testing uh because during a single month last year, they claimed that I used 90,000 gallons of water, which is approximately a tenth of what the Tennessee State aquarium uses for their entire fish tanks. And I thought that was absolutely utterly ridiculous. See, I only generally get a water bill for approximately maybe 20 $30 a month. And for that month, they're claiming I use 90,000 gallons of water. They're trying to charge me $1,300. So, I went in there months ago asking, "Hey, what's going on? This isn't right. There's no way I use 90,000 gallons of water. I I'm on septic, so I don't even use the city sewage." So, if I had a 90,000galon leak, you would see a river of water going through my yard or you would see just uh you would see you would smell fumes coming out of my septic stream if you it didn't completely collapse and just decide to start spewing out of the grounds. But yeah, so I went in there again after they decided to post a public announcement apologizing to the community for overreading and underreading people's water meters. And see, I made a po post months ago when I talked to them the first time. And I've had people say they don't come out and read the meters. They've had mud on their meters, so there's no way it's possible for them to read it. I talked to another wonderful lady whose husband is a plumber who they're trying to say she had tens of thousands of gallons used in a single month. And her husband had being a plumber for years and years, you know, he checked out everything leaked whatsoever. So, they're asking for clarification, transparency on what's going on. to say, "Hey, you know, you guys just put out this this apology, and so, you know, it relates to what I had going on months ago, and I was asking for what was going on." And then I was met with just lies. I was met with the third degree. I was met with attitude. Uh, and I was just going in there trying to figure out, hey, you know, what's going on? What can we do about this? Because this is the exact issue that I had previously. I brought it to their attention. And so now you've kind of given us the issue of what led up to this is this water problem. And I've experienced that myself when I I remember when I was in law school except it was an electric meter issue where they had misread it. And I can understand the frustration of going to a a public utility and then you're having a dispute with them over the reading.

[00:05:56]Now for the audience, this all leads up to an arrest of Mr. Volandorf. Is that correct? Is how to say that right? Or Owen. Can I call you Owen?

[00:06:04]>> Yeah, absolutely. So, this is a police video, but we're trying to give the the narrative of what led up to this. And that is where Mr. Owen was arrested for free speech retaliation. And this is a classic bar exam question. It's a classic law school example of explaining co-envy against California. That's a main case. You can cuss at police and it's protected. And obviously here the police had arrested you first claiming disorderly conduct and we're going to talk about that in in a moment. We're going to throw up the statute up on the on the screen and talk about that and we'll also talk about Coenv versus California. But there's also some Tennessee cases as well. And the question is that really the legal analysis is is while you have the Tennessee statute on disorderly conduct and it has its elements. However, they have to balance that with, like I said, Coen v. California and the numerous other free of speech cases that have come out of the Supreme Court. And we're going to talk about that in more detail.

[00:07:07]And also, you were arrested for they claimed you were resisting arrest. Is that correct?

[00:07:12]>> That is what they claim. Yes, that is correct.

[00:07:14]>> And we're going to talk about that in more detail. And so, you went in with a camera, which you were smart to do. I do recommend that if you guys ever go and try to record yourselves in a public building, hold the camera up either in a portrait or in landscape and keep it in that view the entire time cuz I was kind of having to tilt your video around a little bit, but you got great video. So, as they see in the video, you you approach uh the first lady that comes up at the window and then there's another lady that comes up and we see well, let's just say we see her in the video and you see part of her face, but you see her in the video. We'll leave it at that. And then she's having a conversation with you and we don't really see much of her face. And so, it sounds like y'all were having a disagreement. What was their position?

[00:08:03]What was your position then? And this is what leads up to the mayor coming out who you eventually cuss at and then the two officers. So, has there been a problem with water utility issues? Is there fraud going on? And tell us about what happened about the two guys being fired which the mayor admitted to. Kind of tell us about that conversation with the young lady and then kind of how when it comes up to the mayor and the two guys being fired and so forth. So, previously speaking with that lady that you'll see in the video there uh that I had, I believe she's more of a uh she she works in a managerial position there at the water company. So, she's kind of more one of the higherups, not one of the desk ladies. And I spoke with her previously where she was telling me that they only have two people that go out and read all the meters in and Greenbryer for all their customer base every single month. And upon going down there and like I said, trying to get some transparency, trying to see what was going on and talking to Mayor Adco, he told me that those two people were fired and that they were the root cause of the problem.

[00:09:04]>> Now, tell me more about that. I don't mean to when you say what's the root of the problem, why were they fired, and what were these two guys doing per your understanding? So per my understanding it's from what I can plausibly come to the conclusion of is these people these two people were going around and estimating people's water bills and upon there and asking them do you guys ever estimate water bills is that something you guys do they say no every single month we go out and check the water meters which upon a lot of reaching out about this to me is not the case.

[00:09:39]There's been a lot of meters that have not been read. So what exactly were these guys doing that was that got them fired? Were they just making up numbers or well what what was going on?

[00:09:50]>> I never got an official statement as to what they were doing from Mayor Adcock or from the ladies in the video. You know, from their public apology where they said they were overreading and underreading meters. That's the statement they decided to give. My own personal knowledge on what I believe is going on is I think they were absolutely estimating the videos and they were putting that on paperwork which to my knowledge would be forgery. You're forging paperwork for people's bills that they're supposed to be paying every month and you expect these people to pay these bills. And if you underread a meter, you overread a meter, and you're not right, you end up with people that have a $1,300 water bill that they're not expecting because they expect transparency in the bills that they get from the city. You know, it's I didn't just go in there talking to them or myself. I went in there trying to get some information, trying to get some clarity so I can talk to the community members and we can have a plan moving forward so that this never happens again because the last thing I want is, you know, an elderly lady that's, you know, getting paycheck to paycheck and she, you know, expects that that the city's doing their job and checking her meter, right? and all of a sudden she gets a $1,300 water bill and this is something that she's not able to afford and they shut her water off the same way that they did mine, which is absolutely utterly ridiculous, especially since I requested to have my water situation investigated. And it is not legal for them to shut off your water if you request an investigation.

[00:11:18]>> All right. Now, Owen, tell me, we're just going to run through this. Owen, is this you entering the city hall of Greenbryer?

[00:11:24]>> Yes, it is. and tell me what's what we're about to watch and kind of take me through and just do a playbyplay. Kind of stop, tell me what happens and then play again because uh you're actually having to take over the playing here of the video cuz you're a little bit better at this than me. But so tell us what's going on and just uh take us through it.

[00:11:41]>> So this is me getting out of the car. My girlfriend drove us over to the city water department where I went in to go get some of that transparency like I was talking about with the problems that we've been having here in Greenbire about people's water meters not being read. Right. And myself included. So, here I am walking into the city hall to go get some transparency. As you can see, city hall there open Mondays through Fridays. So, as I walk up, you'll see that clerk there that I said she just does her regular, you know, meeting with paper.

[00:12:14]>> Yeah. I was also curious, what did you guys do to uh to resolve the issue?

[00:12:20]>> What's happened? Well, you guys just went out in regards to it was y'all's fault with everybody's problem. They come in. So, that was me talking to, like I said, the clerk. The lady who's coming up from behind her is the lady I've spoke to before about this issue. She's someone that I believe, if I'm not mistaken, is in more of a managerial position there at the water company there in Greenbryer. And she is above the lady that I'm speaking with right now, and she introduced me to her and said she'll be able to help me. So, here we go.

[00:12:49]>> Okay. issue when y'all were telling me it's my fault. You must have believe all this stuff. I had to come in here, deal with you guys, talk to you guys, you guys tell me, "Oh, it's your fault. It's your fault." I had to sit there. I said, "I'm about to go to the state board and have them." And then you guys end up doing an internal investigation. And I'm not the only one who's had this problem.

[00:13:06]You guys do a public apology for your own mistakes. I'm wondering what do you guys do?

[00:13:16]So, what I was asking for here in this moment is previously I asked them to come out and actually pull my meter and test it and the way that they're supposed to to make sure that the meter is reading the amounts of gallons per water that you're using when you're using your water. And I was asking for that paperwork for that reading. And I called over to them before I even came in to get that information which they say keep there. They keep somewhere else and and whatnot. So, >> and and then uh this leads us up to a point where I believe you use an explicative or something here in a moment. There are discussion then the mayor comes out here in a minute and then there's talk about two meter readers having there was issues with them. They were fired. Tell us about that.

[00:13:57]>> So, when I was speaking with her, she was sitting there telling me that that my meter was right and that that my meter has nothing to do with what's going on with their situation. And I, you know, through what we've talked about, 90,000 gallons of water in a single month is not right. With the fact that the two people that they previously claimed are the only people that go out and read the meters and whatnot were just fired as per what Mayor Adcock says, you'll hear later in the video.

[00:14:21]I'm saying there's there's no way that you guys are claiming that my meter readings are not a part of the situation that you guys just gave a public apology about. So here here we go.

[00:14:34]>> He has it on top. not in your resourcing.

[00:14:48]>> So mine is different. Still doesn't answer my question. What was the issue now that you guys are providing a public service announcement apology for?

[00:14:58]>> There was some underrates done and over done on different accounts.

[00:15:04]You showed us the video.

[00:15:06]>> So, she's telling me right here that I showed them a video. I I did take a 5gallon Harbor Freight bucket and I ran my water from a spot up at the front.

[00:15:15]Made sure all my other water was turned off. So, I was only getting a reading from my water spet and it did seem to read accurately. Now, what they're not saying anything about is the fact that they they made the statement where they were either underreading or overreading people's water bills. And like I stated to them before, there was months where I just planted new grass. There was a huge pine tree I had cut up and I had to be moved and I planted new grass and I was running sprinklers during different months. Then they're claiming I use 90,000 gallons of water. And it's a 300galon an hour sprinkler. So during those months that they claimed that I only used maybe somewhere around 1,000 to 2,000 gallons of water, I said there's no possible way I only used that amount of water because I knew I was using my sprinklers for a longer period of time during those months prior to the 90,000gal gallon reader meeting month that they were trying to bill me for.

[00:16:13]Now what I'm trying to get from this is transparency. They're claiming that mine was completely separate. No, you guys underread my meter during those months.

[00:16:22]And all I'm all I was asking for is just transparency. Say, "Hey, yeah, this is what happened. We didn't read your meters during that that month." And here's the explanation for it. As I said, transparency. That's what a lot of people want.

[00:16:39]>> Exactly what I read. I'm also talking to >> So take us through where you use the cuss word and then kind of how the mayor comes in. Can you do that for me?

[00:16:52]>> Absolutely. So I skip four I think it was about right in here that >> and you're doing a great job by the way.

[00:16:57]Excellent job.

[00:16:58]>> To me >> freedom of speech you are not going to step on doesn't matter about respect.

[00:17:05]It's called freedom of speech. It's a >> Yeah. Let's back up and let's hear that again. People have had money on their meters and you guys claim that you read it. There's no possible way. And you guys are lying to the public. We the people. You guys are [ __ ] liars.

[00:17:21]>> Right there. So, let's stop right there.

[00:17:24]That's the first time that you cuss, you're frustrated with a government worker, and you say you guys are you're [ __ ] liars. Is that what you say?

[00:17:32]>> It's exactly what I said. Y'all just heard it.

[00:17:34]>> Okay. Okay. And that's in and everybody go Google Cohen CH N versus California.

[00:17:40]That is the seminal Supreme Court case on free speech. And now we're leading up to now where the mayor is going to come out, then the then the deputy chief Allen and the other officer. Then we're starting to now really get into what what this is all about that led up to your arrest. Let's take this from here.

[00:17:56]>> Before we get into that, I want to ask you question about what was just said next where she says >> freedom of speech. You are not going to step on.

[00:18:05]>> She pointed to a sign where they they have what I I didn't even read the sign.

[00:18:10]I'll be honest with you. I don't even know what it says. Like they were she if I had to presume what she was going on about is there rules about profanity in in their building. Mr. Roland, if you don't mind, can >> call me Roland.

[00:18:23]>> Roland is is it all right? So, all right. So, if I could call you Roland.

[00:18:26]Awesome. So, can government buildings impose their own rules that overstepped our constitutional rights?

[00:18:33]>> Owen, you've asked an incredible question. Anybody that watches enough of these YouTube videos, you especially with the auditors, cities cannot have regulations, for example, controlling uh certain elements of speech during citizen comments. It has to be subject to strict scrutiny. Sometimes you'll see how cities will limit speech. It has to be about, you know, a board agenda meetings and things like that. Then if a lot of times when you watch these a lot of these other auditor videos, you'll see how they'll go into a courthouse or any kind of public facility and there'll be a sign that says no recording. And that's a you can't can't do that. That's against it's a public place. It can be you can record in a common area. Now, what a lot of times they'll do is they'll put a sign up that says a restricted area and then that's kind of where they get away with you can't go into those areas like a mayor's office or let's say you could not go back into that back behind that glass area where their desks are. They would say you couldn't go back in there and freely record. Now, you're standing in a common area. They cannot put a sign up that says you how to regulate your language to an extent. However, then that's where that balance is between the Tennessee disorderly conduct statute which we're going to discuss and obviously the first amendment and the ca and the cases that have been the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment again cov California and a lot of the other cases that have come out in my opinion no uh that's where a lot of times in these cases we will file petitions for declaratory judgment injunctive relief where you're asking a federal court to say to a community that your ordinance, your regulation or such other is in violation and therefore cannot be enforced. That's where you see for example the one channel or the gentleman all the time he holds that cardboard sign that says God bless the homeless and you'll have a lot of these cities try to say well you can't panhandle you can't do certain types of speech in a public park during certain types of events. Now, they can pass these laws, these ordinances, but that's where you go in, you file the lawsuit, and you have a federal judge, that those laws be uh deemed unlawful, and then obviously that's what you would refer to as a declaratory judgment. Sometimes other people do it through injunctive relief.

[00:20:48]It depends on the fact pattern. So, you're asking me about a piece of paper that says, "Hey, you can't use certain types of language and so forth." a lot.

[00:20:55]But a lot of times what you will these auditors when they go into the courouses or go they go into these public facilities in the common areas is they'll say see a sign that says no public recording and in most instances that is unlawful. As long as it's in a government building and it's in a common area then you can absolutely record. Now a perfect a perfect example would be a lot of times people will try to go let's say into a courtroom. Now, the laws been been uh have upheld that while you can record in a public common area of let's say a courthouse, you cannot go into the judge's courtroom and start recording unless he specifically allows it where now and also what a lot of these other communities, excuse me, in these jurisdictions they're doing is they'll have a piece of paper up on the wall and it'll be a court order by a judge. a judge actually say a court order saying you cannot record in this building or you can't do this or you can't do that and that's unlawful. That is that is an beyond a gross abuse of discretion. The judge is just acting unlawfully. So you see a lot of instances like that. So I would have to look at the piece of paper that you're talking about and I would have to see what it says. If anybody wants to go in and take a picture of it or share it with me, I'd like to see that. Now again, what is that balance between free speech cov versus California and the Tennessee public disorderly statute? We're going to talk about that more here in in just a moment, but I need to get the text the statute up. So, let's talk about that here in a bit. So, let's take us through the video where the mayor comes up and this is where things really get happening.

[00:22:29]>> All right. Well, right in here, I see the mayor start coming over. So prove that you guys are estimating bills and lie about that and that is for you to make >> Yeah. Go ahead. We're going to investigate.

[00:22:45]>> All right. Here come the officers.

[00:22:48]>> The numbers match but not during the months that you guys claimed you'll come out and meet us and you were decimating it which is still fraud and forgery. And yes, that's exactly what it is. So I'm just going to thank you for your statement and telling me exactly what happened because I have it on recording.

[00:23:02]got your statement and got their statement. This is one thing I appreciate you and you guys are just [ __ ] appreciate.

[00:23:10]>> Oh, there's number two where I just called them [ __ ] liars again. We already went over that. So, Mr. Roland Roland, have you has there been anything that you would say in my correspondence with them that you would claim to be disorderly?

[00:23:23]>> We're going to talk about that a minute.

[00:23:24]I want to get the disorderly statute up where we can read the language. It's going to be a lot easier for the audience. Now, I don't know why. Maybe it's just because of the way your media players clipped, but I'm I'm going to drop in the video file that you sent me also where people can see the v the faces of uh Deputy Chief Allen and Mayor Acock and and the other gentlemen. So, all right. Now, you've cussed here twice, and what's interesting to point out here, Owen, is that you're the only person in the hallway. And there's a reason why I'm mentioning this when we bring up the statute. Now, the question is also during this time, are you disrupting services? No, >> that's going to be another key element to come up. Are you using any fighting words here? All right. Now, let's play the video. And then where you and not only the other important point here for the audience is, and by the way, if you guys notice where I'm looking down at an angle, it's because Owen is on my computer screen and I'm naturally looking here. And I got to try to keep remember to look at the camera, but it's hard to do that when I see you over here. So, now this is the key. You're leaving the building and in your criminal defense, this is a key element.

[00:24:30]You're leaving the building here where you start cussing. You're leaving. So, I think their argument about disruption of services, annoyance to the public.

[00:24:38]There's going to be some key tech text uh textual language we're going to talk about here in a moment. Well, now let's walk through the hallway and then this is where they start to come after you and then they take you into custody.

[00:24:50]>> All right, let's do it. So, the mayor told me not to come back into a public building if y'all didn't catch that.

[00:24:56]>> I didn't hear that. Really?

[00:24:57]>> It's It's very faint. He said, "Don't come back here."

[00:25:00]>> All right, let's rewind that. I didn't hear that in the other video.

[00:25:04]>> All right.

[00:25:04]>> I'm not saying he didn't say it. I just I don't have the best hearing.

[00:25:08]>> Yeah, just go ahead.

[00:25:10]>> So, you It's You can hear it.

[00:25:12]>> It's hard to It's hard to hear, but he does say something.

[00:25:14]>> He said, "Don't come back." So, I responded with I will >> stop right there.

[00:25:19]>> That is when the officer decided >> Oh, hold on. We the people. Hold on. I'm sorry. I apologize. We the people. This is a public space. We the people. This is a public space. That's a you very very important two sentences you said there. I'm sorry. Rewind just a little bit and please tell me what you were going to say. I apologize.

[00:25:36]>> So what's going on right after right after I I say we the people this is a public space. We go ahead and and uh you don't see it in the video but one of the officers that was one of the officers that was standing there by the mayor decided to instigate. So at this point I'm walking away cuz I'm going to deescalate. I got all the information that I needed. I requested that they email me the water testing, the water test that they did for my meter. And so I'm walking away and I'm about to go pick up a livestock guardian dog that day. That was my plan for the day. I wanted to go get a cute little puppy.

[00:26:10]But this is what the officer decided to do next.

[00:26:17]>> So he comes around the corner.

[00:26:18]>> What does he say right there?

[00:26:20]>> He says, "If you're he said you're Let's Let's just go ahead and show everybody.

[00:26:25]If you cuss one more time, >> speech, you're not going to resent my right to speech.

[00:26:29]>> And I didn't hear what he said after that cuz I was letting him know you're not going to impede upon my my First Amendment rights.

[00:26:35]>> You're not going to be disrespectful.

[00:26:36]>> You can kiss my ass.

[00:26:38]>> Stop right there.

[00:26:40]>> He says, "You're not going to be disrespectful." And that is a key element of the when we're going to talk about retaliation. You're not going to be disrespectful because now it's about him and his ego. And he thinks that you're being disrespectful to him. And if you understand a little bit more about First Amendment retaliation analysis, you're going to understand now that wasn't about, let's say, to the public. That was him. He was taking that personally, which goes to the retaliatory intended motive. Keep going.

[00:27:05]>> All right. So, here I am opening the door saying, "Kiss my ass." And he says, "Great." And did you hear the tone in his voice? That officer was fishing. He was trying to find any sort of reason to come after me whatsoever. So, here's what happened next. Freedom of speech.

[00:27:22]>> Take this into account. One officer yelled, "Come here." Another officer yelled, "Stop." There wasn't a single officer, it seemed to be in control of the situation. And not even if you take the time stamp of when they just said that and when they decided to put hands on me. How long was that? That wasn't long at all, was it, Mr. Roland?

[00:27:38]>> Call me Roland. That was like a few seconds if that.

[00:27:41]>> What are you supposed TO DO?

[00:27:44]>> WHAT ARE you doing?

[00:27:45]>> My hands were behind my back.

[00:27:47]>> I'm not resisting. I'm not resisting.

[00:27:52]>> I don't see anything here how they're claiming you're resisting arrest.

[00:27:56]>> And you can see it right here as that officer picks up the phone. You saw it in the video. My hands were behind my back. The officer picks up the phone.

[00:28:03]You see it right here as he's walking my phone and my hat over to my girlfriend.

[00:28:07]He had a lovely angle where I'm sitting there on my knees on the ground telling him, "I'm not resisting. I'm not resisting. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. Why are you putting your hands on me?" All this is running through my head and someone with ADHD, you need one person in control, one person to sit there and give you an order. And at this moment, it was pure chaos. I didn't know what was going on.

[00:28:27]I didn't know why my pans were being put on me at this point. I knew there was no law that I had broke. I was I did not commit any crimes at this moment whatsoever.

[00:28:38]Here they are putting in handcuffs. And what you're about to hear next is one of the officers that they're tell it's freedom of speech. And he said, "I told you to stop cussing." And they're calling it disorderly conduct. So they're saying, "I told you to stop cussing." And I I cursed one more time.

[00:28:55]I said, "Kiss my ass when he decided to instigate." And here we are. It's disorderly conduct. So at this point, you can see You want to count them out for us, Mr. Roland or Roland, I'm sorry.

[00:29:05]>> Four officers.

[00:29:06]>> You got one, two, three.

[00:29:09]>> Why don't we turn the video over?

[00:29:11]>> Oh, yeah. Let me go ahead and do that.

[00:29:12]>> And then let's rewind it and play it back.

[00:29:14]>> Absolutely. Oh yeah. Go back about Go.

[00:29:18]Yeah. Let's Let's see how Yeah. Let's pull replay now.

[00:29:21]>> Absolutely.

[00:29:23]>> Do anything wrong.

[00:29:25]>> What are you [ __ ] doing, dude?

[00:29:28]>> Freedom of speech.

[00:29:30]>> Babe, behind your back.

[00:29:31]>> What are you doing?

[00:29:33]>> I'm not resisting.

[00:29:35]>> I'm not resisting. I'm not resisting.

[00:29:38]>> Babe, grab my phone.

[00:29:41]>> Let's stop right here. What what do you think it is that they're claiming you physically were doing to quote resist to resist? And now you have what we call passive resistance and then what we have what we call active resistance. And a lot of times police will try to argue that tensing up. Well, when someone's grabbing your arms, your body is naturally tensing up because of the way that they're articulating your shoulders and your elbows and your wrists to put into the handcuffs. And you know, I mean, our our arms don't rotate 360 degrees. You know, we're not we're not made of rubber where we can just bend any which way. And a lot of times when they're trying to put the uh left and hand, the wrist back together behind your back, your elbows sort of lock up and then they try to argue that that's resisting arrest. I don't know if that's kind of what happened here, but what are they what do you think they're alleging it is that you were doing that they're calling resisting arrest?

[00:30:35]>> That is a lovely question, Rowan. So, as you said, yes, your arms don't always want to go back. I'm a I'm a bigger guy, and I don't have the most flexibility. I I don't sit there. I don't do Pilates. I don't stretch like I should to, but I'm trying to do that because I need to take care of myself. So, they put my arms behind my back and then they're trying.

[00:30:52]You can see the officer in the video.

[00:30:54]He's kicking my foot and he's kicking my leg to try to to try to take me to the ground. Me, I've got a bad right knee because of injury that I had. I still have a screw in my knee. So, me hitting the ground hard at all could potentially reagravate that that injury. And I also just previously had a uh my sciatic nerve in my left side of my my lower back that's messed up from stuff that I've been doing around the farm and just uh just not taking care of myself as I should. So, when they're grabbing me and they're trying to force me in ways my body does not naturally want to go in or that's not going to cause me pain. Yes.

[00:31:27]Like you said, naturally your body's going to tense up because it's your body's natural reaction is going to be to protect itself. And that's all that's going on here.

[00:31:35]>> All right. Now, let's take this up to the point. And then he does he takes the phone. Apparently, he was intelligent here not to end the recording. And I think he I don't know if it was your girl. Was it your girlfriend or your wife or your fiance? Was she actually holding the phone actually recording part of it? it from uh from what it's she he brings the phone over to her and yes, I'm pretty certain she was holding it.

[00:31:58]>> All right, let's play it from here.

[00:31:59]That's kind of what it looked like cuz you see it quite a bit here in a second.

[00:32:03]>> Hey, you see me there. It wasn't even 10 seconds after they put their hands on me and you see me on the ground in cups.

[00:32:09]>> He says there we told you not to cuss.

[00:32:12]>> All right, here we go.

[00:32:13]>> Four guys.

[00:32:14]>> Five.

[00:32:15]>> Oh, five.

[00:32:16]>> One hold me on the ground. Two, three, four, five. Four standing, one on the ground.

[00:32:21]>> Gotcha. You have the right to say what you want, but not in the tone.

[00:32:25]>> Did you hear?

[00:32:25]>> What is he saying there?

[00:32:26]>> He said you have the right to say what you want, but not in the tone and not in the manner as to which you said it.

[00:32:32]>> Well, that's content viewpoint discrimination. What do you mean the tone and the manner? You got to be polite when you cuss at somebody. Go ahead.

[00:32:39]>> I guess that's what they're saying.

[00:32:41]>> I don't know how you politely cuss at somebody.

[00:32:46]>> Come in here cussing, threatening, threatening. Stop cussing. Now here is he talk is it your girlfriend?

[00:32:52]>> Yep. He's talking to my girlfriend who's sitting there reporting.

[00:32:55]>> Yeah. Let's go back a little bit and again they keep talking about the custody. They're just making your case here.

[00:33:08]>> Okay. Stop there. And I think that's kind of about where we're going to end the video because this is I've I've watched it all and this is it. Now where are they bringing in this word threatening? Where who would we view threatening? That's a very good question, Roland. The only >> So, let's uh let's stop sharing the screen. Let's stop sharing the screen and let's you and I talk directly.

[00:33:26]>> All right.

[00:33:27]>> Or can I do it? Oh, there we go. Now, all right. So, I'm going to ask you the question about did you threaten anybody at any time?

[00:33:34]>> Absolutely not. The only thing I mentioned was a lawsuit from the people of Greenbryer because of the injustice that's been had upon the city of the people of the city of Greenbryer. Well, you find that as you said, Roland, the uh Cohen versus California, I did not use fighting words. I did not use uh I did >> Hold on. Hold on. You're jumping ahead of me.

[00:33:58]>> Okay, >> hold on. We're >> We're about to We're get like Hold on, buddy. We're about to talk about that. You're jump.

[00:34:09]All right. Here. We're going to share the screen. I'm going to give you the chance to talk about fighting words all you want. Let's make this uh large here because I've learned on the screen on the TV screens. All right, this is the 2024. I guess they the just the 2025 will be out that that's just how they do it. Anyways, this is the disorderly conduct statute and this is 2026 applicable. They haven't changed it now.

[00:34:35]>> So, this is 3917305.

[00:34:38]Now, you were bringing up the key words uh and which I wanted to talk about. I'm going to try to make the screen as big as we can there cuz I've learned on 55 in screen TVs we need to zoom in. Okay. Disorderly conduct >> first is they they arrest they arrested you for uh disorderly conduct. You were in a public place. Yep.

[00:35:01]>> Where there was nobody else around. You were speaking to a lady behind a screened window. So there's no way you could have harmed her in any way. So what? Let's look at the language here.

[00:35:11]They've charged you with resisting arrest, which was total horseshit. And with the five guys on you, you were resisting. I love that one. And then so we got a class C misdemeanor charge. Now let's look at section A. A person commits an offense who in a public place. So you were in a public place.

[00:35:27]And then it says with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm. These are the two words that they're going to touch upon. Well, public annoyance and alarm, that's those that's very broad. And of course, there's case law on that. You were there, you didn't go there to cause annoyance. You were there to talk about uh your the public the water reading meter issue, which we've talked to quite a bit. Uh you were not there to cause alarm like screaming fire in a fire in a movie theater.

[00:35:55]>> Oh, why would that?

[00:35:56]>> So, all right. A person who commits an offense who in a public place and with intent, that's the key word, intent, to cause public annoyance or alarm. one engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior. That's out. No evidence of that. You were walking away.

[00:36:12]That's a key fact.

[00:36:13]>> Yes.

[00:36:14]>> Remember, that's why I brought that up earlier. You were leaving the scene.

[00:36:18]>> I was getting out of there.

[00:36:19]>> Now, number two, refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire hazard emergency.

[00:36:28]That would be involving a large group gathering like a crowd of protesters.

[00:36:33]Number two, obviously does not apply.

[00:36:35]Number three, creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act that serves no legitimate purpose. What hazardous act could you have created?

[00:36:45]And what physically offensive condition?

[00:36:48]What what cussing a police officer and a mayor? I mean, that's the ultimate free speech.

[00:36:53]>> Ultimate. This was >> Now, let's remember the lady was behind a glass wall. They can't claim any threat. And you didn't say any threatening. You just called him a liar.

[00:37:02][ __ ] liars.

[00:37:03]>> All right. Now, number B. This is the one where they're going to try to hit you with a person also violates the section who makes unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on unlawful activities. That unlaw unreasonable noise. That's so ambiguous that it's almost a void for vagueness in itself, but this statute's been around a long time.

[00:37:25]>> Mr. Roland, I got >> I don't think you made unreasonable noise. This is about cussing. They said it after they said it in the hallway, don't cuss. And they said it outside that it was about cussing. They have they can't argue anything else that it was about your cussing. And you were walking away. So there's no fighting words. Obviously, you didn't threaten anybody. And you how did you prevent others from carrying on lawful activities? They were engaging with you in a conversation about your water meter reading. Then the mayor came out. You didn't ask for the mayor to come out.

[00:37:56]Correct.

[00:37:56]>> No, I didn't ask. He came out and he >> The mayor voluntarily interjected himself into the conversation. I apologize. I didn't mean to speak over you. Go ahead.

[00:38:04]>> He said, "Yeah, I asked him if he wanted to make a statement. You all heard it."

[00:38:08]He said, "Absolutely." He said, "Sure."

[00:38:09]He agreed to talking with me, but I got a question for you, Roland. It's in this statute, it says, "A person who violates a section who makes unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities." Now, wouldn't you say that free speech is a lawful activity? an officer creating unreasonable noise, yelling at me down the hallway saying, "You're not going to be disrespectful. If you're going to cuss one more time, wouldn't you say that that's unreasonable noise that's prohibiting me from carrying on my lawful activities?"

[00:38:38]>> Well, you're making an interesting argument that that person is making unreasonable noise, yelling in at you.

[00:38:46]So, I understand the point you're making. The best part of your I'm sorry.

[00:38:49]It's hard to a lot of times to the viewers, it does we're not interrupting each other intentionally. There's a latency in the video. So, it's hard to know when we're each speaking. So, I do apologize.

[00:38:58]>> I bet >> you are leaving the building. That is the key thing. You're leaving. And so, that is your biggest defense. And they didn't like your cussing and they come outside. I don't even understand how they come up with the resistant arrest.

[00:39:12]That made absolutely no sense. And this was clear that their egos got bruised.

[00:39:17]So, this is the statute. Now the balance is going to be is what does Cohen versus California say about free speech and then in terms of uh the language about unreasonable noise but Cohen v California first amendment I believe would trump this there are certain situations obviously the right fact patterns where you can have disorderly conduct but here you're leaving this was about cussing they mentioned that so many times they it was about the language and I don't believe I didn't hear anywhere in the video where they said that You were preventing them from carrying on their business. Correct.

[00:39:51]>> No. No. Not at all.

[00:39:52]>> I didn't hear that.

[00:39:53]>> Are you I didn't hear that. The mayor interjected himself into the conversation.

[00:39:57]>> Are you going to show them the affidavit by chance? Cuz I got a huge question.

[00:40:00]>> Yeah. I'm about to throw it up.

[00:40:02]>> Awesome.

[00:40:03]>> There's another thing.

[00:40:05]>> It's just a document. It's just a >> Very good. All right. Let's zoom in on here. And you have shared to me. Let's give the viewers about 10 seconds to read this. So you tell me about this.

[00:40:17]you felt did you think there was something inaccurate about this and you take it from here?

[00:40:23]>> Absolutely. I mean, just a quick glance, the first glance I did at this when Deputy Chief Allen said that that the individual was advised not to be cussing and to calm down once telling Mayor Adcock, "Fuck you and [ __ ] this city."

[00:40:38]When did I say that? When did I >> All right, hold on a second. Oh, I see where you Okay, >> let's take the first sentence. This happened last week, May 7th, or just a few days ago.

[00:40:48]>> Two days ago, >> Deputy Chief Allen was called to the Greenbryer City Hall. I don't know how he was called there because he pretty much walked right right out of the >> I think he was already there in regards to an iate individual in the lobby. All right, it was all right. We got that once arriving on scene. And this says Kurt Allen. So when it says I observed, we're referring to Kurt Allen. I observed the individual arguing with Mayor Adcock. Now, that is an exaggeration because Mayor Adcock came into the conversation and you and he were talking about the issue. So, this arguing that that characterization is very misleading because Mr. Mayor Atcock interjected himself into the conversation, consensually engaged with you. And I would not have called that an argument. I mean, it was obviously some contention, but I think that's an exaggeration. Now, the individual was advised not to be cussing and to calm down once telling Mayor Adcock, "Fuck you.

[00:41:45]>> [ __ ] you and [ __ ] the city." Now, I I did somebody tell you to calm down.

[00:41:49]>> No, nobody said calm.

[00:41:50]>> I didn't hear that.

[00:41:51]>> Nobody told me.

[00:41:52]>> So, all right. You take it from here.

[00:41:53]You tell me what you want to say about this sentence.

[00:41:55]>> Nobody said calm down. Nobody said you need to leave. I was leaving on my own fruition. I was walking out the door and Kirk Allen decided to follow me down the hallway and just instigate. He decided to just continue to make the situation more than it ever needed to be.

[00:42:14]>> And let me do this for a second. Let me We're going to come right back to this.

[00:42:18]>> You going to pull up the statute?

[00:42:20]>> Do you see this this Mayor Adcock?

[00:42:22]>> That is Mayor Adcock.

[00:42:24]>> All right. So, we see him.

[00:42:25]>> Then you see the officer that picked up my phone also there.

[00:42:28]>> Oh, that was okay. And then let's introduce the world to >> to uh Kurt Allen.

[00:42:33]>> Chief Allen. Yeah. Let's Oh, I want Is that Mr. Allen?

[00:42:37]>> Yeah, that's that's Mr. Allen. That's Kurt Allen. That's the one who brought me down to Booking. Where >> the Deputy Chief Allen? Is that that Hold on. That's M. Allen.

[00:42:44]>> That's Mr. Allen.

[00:42:45]>> And do you see just him on the screen?

[00:42:47]>> You see him and the mayor Adcock's shoulder right there.

[00:42:51]>> Okay. All right. So, this is who we're talking about. And let's now let's go back to the statement. Okay. Just the whole state. Okay. Good. All right. Um I All right, cuz we got to wrap this up.

[00:43:02]My wife wanted to go to lunch. All right. She's a real warden around here.

[00:43:06]That's staying in the video. My wife is the warden, chief of police, correctional deputy, jury, everything.

[00:43:12]All right. Let's tell me more about this. So, what is it you're saying that they're alleging here that you saying that you did not say? Cuz because you did cuss, but just clarify for me what you think is false here.

[00:43:23]>> So, they said that I said [ __ ] you and [ __ ] this city. That is something I would never say.

[00:43:30]>> Okay.

[00:43:31]>> I would say I No, actually I'm gonna correct that. I wouldn't say I would never say [ __ ] you, but the portion where it says [ __ ] this city, I love this city. This place I call home. I love the back roads. I love the smoky barns. I love the little big town that it is. It is a wonderful, wonderful place to live if you're not dealing with situations such as this one. They said I said, "Fuck you and [ __ ] this city."

[00:43:53]Now, we went over the video. So, you saw when I talked to Mayor Adcock and you saw all the way to me walking out the door till I'm on the ground with five officers on me. There's not a single instance in there where I said, "Fuck you and [ __ ] this city."

[00:44:06]>> And let's remember this also. You were holding the phone. So, the phone video would have picked it up.

[00:44:12]>> Yep. It was sitting right here in this jacket pocket.

[00:44:15]>> Now, it says, "Okay, you began to walk towards the door again and he told the chief of police, "Kiss my ass." subject then was advised to stop as he was walking out the door and then is there anything else in here that you you take issue with the aggressive stance. So tell me about what that about that.

[00:44:32]>> So it says the subject was then advised to stop as he was walking out the door.

[00:44:36]So as as I stated earlier I was walking out the door the instance I said my ass.

[00:44:43]>> I was only told to stop >> when I was already out the door. I was outside. So, how was I when did they tell me to stop? When I was already outside, I wasn't walking through that door. That's that's an interesting statement, >> right? But the aggressive stance part is just absolutely a mischaracterization or it's just an outright false statement.

[00:45:04]And police officers when they it says aant signature that that means he's making a test he's making a statement under oath and it would I think you could call it perjury if you don't want to use the word perjury, but it's a false statement under oath. He says anything in here false >> perjury.

[00:45:20]>> I'm sorry.

[00:45:20]>> I absolutely 100% call this perjury cuz this is making a statement under oath about your recollection about what happened and everyone there every officer there, every city member there heard exactly what I said and he's putting words into my mouth saying I said this. If you can't remember what was said 5 seconds ago, you got an issue and you shouldn't be an officer that should be protecting this city. Cuz you can't remember what happened 5 seconds ago. How are you supposed to remember anything at all?

[00:45:48]>> I got you. Well, I think that takes us up to >> I just want to say thank you so much, Roland, for taking the time to speak with me about this. This has been >> No, I I just absolutely I just apologize that I've got to figure out a way to share a video where the system audio can be recorded. A Zoom can do it, but it's terrible video. But I'm going to show an example of a lawsuit where I represented a YouTuber who recorded I've actually got a number of free speech cases. Let's see here in Georgia.

[00:46:20]>> Sounds like problem in this country. If you got a number of free speech cases, >> I've got I more I can handle more than >> Sounds like our officers need to.

[00:46:28]>> All right, let's see. Hold on here.

[00:46:31]>> This is an 11th Circuit case, but the law is the same. This was a lawsuit that we had filed in Georgia. Now, after we get hopefully your charges will be dismissed if the prosecutor does what he's supposed to do, then you're interested in suing the Chief Allen and the second officer and the mayor is for Is that correct?

[00:46:50]>> I'm looking to get justice 100%.

[00:46:53]>> Okay. You may possibly have a lawsuit against the city of Greenbryer, but that's what we refer to as a Monell claim. Those are kind of tough. But you definitely have the three claims against you got an against the two officers and the and the mayor. So this is an example of a lawsuit that I filed in Georgia.

[00:47:10]But whether it's 11th circuit or sixth circuit, it's all the the law is pretty is the same. So this was what the count of your lawsuit would say. Count one, first amendment, retaliation in violation, first amendment, all defendants. Okay. The first amendment protects individual rights to express free speech, including criticism and objections toward police conduct. It is clearly established that a person has a right to be free from retaliation for exercising the first amendment freedoms.

[00:47:36]The reason why such retaliation offends the Constitution is that it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right.

[00:47:44]And here's the three elements. And sometimes in some of these circuits, they have a fourth element that's really just redundant of the third. But here's the main thing. Plaintists must establish that their speech was constitutionally protected. Cohenv versus California absolutely protects your cussing of police officers. I mean, he literally wore a t-shirt that said f the police or f something to that effect. I have to go back and look up what the exact words were. And there's been plenty of cases about shooting the middle finger at police, calling them pigs. And again, I'm not condoning that kind of behavior.

[00:48:16]>> I'm not condoning it. I agree with you.

[00:48:18]I'm not I'm not I'm not condoning it.

[00:48:20]But you you have the right to say what you want to say. All right. Number two, the defendant's retaliatory conduct adversely affected the free speech and there is a causal connection between the retaliatory actions and the adverse effect on the speech. Now we see Co, California.

[00:48:37]>> Yes, we do. Big shout out to Justia Law.

[00:48:40]They have been absolutely wonderful. I >> you can you can read these on many things, but Jesse is great. Now, this was this is the case on free speech.

[00:48:49]This is a siminal case period. And then there were other cases that were narrowly construed on other fact patterns that came out of CB versus California. Very often times you have a Supreme Court case that holds a broad principle and then you have test cases that come after and then it narrowly construds the holding of a previous case. Now there the appellant was convicted of violating uh uh penal code which prohibits quote maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct. Kind of similar language of the disorderly conduct.

[00:49:23]Okay, excuse me. He was wearing a jacket that said [ __ ] the draft. I'm sorry, not [ __ ] the police. I'm thinking of another case. Plenty of cases that say that.

[00:49:31]Now, let's also remember 95% of all police officers out there, I think, are good people that respect constitutional rights. But what I do for a living is I go after the bad apples of the 5%.

[00:49:41]>> The Court of Appeals held that offensive conduct means behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace. That is the fighting words in any type of textual language in state laws that you see. That is where that's coming from. The fighting words. You absolutely did not say anything that would cause to provoke an a response or a violent act. Okay? So, that's directly from that. Now, where they're going to try to get you is public annoyance and talking loud. That that's where they're going to come up with that. But, there's plenty of cases that have said this. The Supreme Court has said that free speech trumps this quote public annoyance and loud. So, this is the case. And I'm sorry. Go ahead. I apologize. We're having a little bit of latency there.

[00:50:25]>> Oh, you I was just saying, yeah, like you said, there there was nobody in that hallway, right? But nobody there.

[00:50:31]>> I don't think it would have mattered if you had. Right.

[00:50:33]>> There were people there.

[00:50:34]>> Exactly. Like you're saying too, 100%.

[00:50:36]You know, I back the blue. You know, I got my stickers on my truck 100%. But it's that 5% that needs to change. I' I'd like to see that 5% down to 0%. I'd like to make >> Let's point this out. On this case on April 26, 1968, the defendant was observed in a courthouse in the corridor outside municipal court wearing the jacket saying [ __ ] the draft which were plainly visible. There were women and children present in the corridor. So let's compare that to your fact pattern where there was nobody. Uh the defendant was arrested. He testified in a jacket knowing that the words as a means of informing the public depth of his feelings against the Vietnam War. All right. Now, the defendant did not make any loud or unusual noise, nor was there any evidence that he or uttered any sound prior to his arrest. Now, that's specific to this case. Plenty of free speech cases about, like you said, public speech, especially cussing in front of a city council, has been upheld. It's free speech. Now, at some point, you can't use fighting words or you can't disrupt the services. And that is that line I believe between the disorderly conduct statute and cov California and your general your other general freedom of speech cases. She's behind a glass. You are having a conversation. You walk away. You say some cuss words. You in no way disrupted their services. And if the mayor tries to come out and say you disrupted him performing his services, he's the one that came and engaged in the conversation. And I don't think there was anything going on enough between you and that lady to try to say that you were causing public annoyance or being a problem. People are frustrated with their tax bill.

[00:52:09]>> They got caught and they don't like it.

[00:52:10]>> That's it.

[00:52:11]>> Yep. They got caught. They don't like it. This is retaliatory from the the entire city of Greenbryer. This is absolutely 100% ridiculous. Like you were saying, I did not use any fighting words. There is a major difference between kiss my ass and I'm going to kick your ass. Major difference. one you can almost argue is out of love.

[00:52:30]>> So here what you would say is in the first place Cohen was tried under a statute applicable throughout the entire state. Any attempt to support this conviction on the ground that the statute seeks to preserve an appropriately decorous atmosphere in the courthouse where Cohen was arrested must fail in the absence of any language in the statute that would have put appellent on notice that certain kinds of otherwise permissible speech or conduct would nevertheless under California law not be tolerating certain places. Well, let's see here. No fair reading of the phrase quote offensive conduct can be said sufficiently to inform the ordinary person that distinction between certain locations are thereby created. In the second place, as it comes to us, this case cannot be said to fall within those few relatively category. Let's see.

[00:53:16]It says right here, "This court has also held that states are free to ban the simple use without demonstration of additional justifying circumstances of so-called fighting words." Those personally abusive epithets which when addressed the ordinary citizen are as a matter of common knowledge inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.

[00:53:37]You did not do anything that to provoke a violent reaction. And you were speaking to police officers. They're held to a higher standard. Well, and we're not even talking about regular citizens. They're held to a higher standard that they are not that they would not take such conduct. Police officers know they can be cussed at.

[00:53:52]>> Yeah. And this is the chief four-letter word displayed by the in relation is not uncommonly. Now, while the fourletter word displayed by Cohen in relation to the draft is not uncommonly employed in a personally provocative fashion, in this instance, it was clearly not directed to the person of the hearer. No individual action, I'm sorry, no individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on the appellent jacket as a direct personal insult. So I think this is an important paragraph here. Now the rationale of the California court is plainly untenable. At most it reflects an undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance which is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance which is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Again, that goes to that language of the statute annoyance. We have been shown no evidence that substantial numbers of citizens are standing ready to strike out physically at whoever may assault their sensibilities with I don't know, execrations. I'm no used to saying that word like that uttered by Cohen. Now, you said it verbally, his shirt said it textually, >> but it's all said There may be I'm sorry >> I said it's all speech and we got freedom.

[00:55:09]>> Absolutely. It's all speech. There may be some persons about which such lawless and violent proclivities but that is an unsufficient base upon which to erect consistently with constitutional values of governmental power to force persons who wish to ventilate their dissident views into avoiding particular forms of expression. All right, let's see the argument now a little more than a All right. One of the most prerogative, excuse me, one of the par prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures. And that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation. I think we can say you spoke without moderation. Now that's bone bombarder versus United States. Another Supreme Court case. Finally, and in the same vein, we cannot indulge the fasile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process. Indeed, governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views. We have been able, as noted above, to discern little social benefit that might result from running the risk of opening the door to such gray results. It is in some our judgment that absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions. The state may not consistently with the first and 14th amendment make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter exploitative a criminal offense. Well, if you verbalize it, what's the difference? Because that is only arguably sustainable rationale for the conviction here at issue. The judgment must be below. And then they reversed it. So, and they overturned this statute. Now, the disorderly conduct statute in Tennessee has been upheld for many years, but it's the interpretation by the court in the criminal court when they they have to consider the First Amendment.

[00:57:06]>> Constitutional rights. Got to love them.

[00:57:08]>> Here's another language. One may be guilty of disturbing the peace through offensive conduct if by his actions he willfully and maliciously incites others to violence or engages in conduct likely to incite others to violence. Again, I keep bringing up that key language.

[00:57:26]That's the key to disorderly conduct.

[00:57:27]And you did not just incite others uh in any way. Again, they're going to try to get you on the public annoyance and then that's just where you get into the case law about, well, how does Tennessee deem public annoyance? But this is ridiculous.

[00:57:40]>> It is 100% absolutely ridiculous.

[00:57:42]>> Oh, let's see. Here's another important paragraph footnote. In fact, other portions of the same statute do make such distinctions. For example, the statute also prohibits disturbing quote the peace or quiet by loud or unusual noise. That is what they're going to try to come at you with and using vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of women or children in a loud and boisterous manner. This second quoted provision in particular serves to put the actor on much fairer notice as to what is prohibited. It also butresses our view that the offensive conduct portion as construed and applied in this case cannot legitimately be justified in this court as designed or intended to make fine distinctions between differently situated recipients.

[00:58:30]>> So Roland, uh, going back to what we were saying earlier about the public. So this is what you were saying earlier there. There's nobody in that hallway.

[00:58:39]And government workers, at least to my knowledge, are not considered the same as the public in an everyday sense.

[00:58:46]They're public servants. So I wasn't making an issue.

[00:58:49]>> No, no, it's a public place.

[00:58:51]>> Thank you again for taking the time with me here. This is >> by now. This is a summary by just something that I'm putting into Lexus.

[00:59:00]So, you know, you put in is cussing at police or mayor in Tennessee a violation of the disorderly conduct statute or such speech protected by the first amendment. This is Lexus. This is my $320 a month legal research platform.

[00:59:13]Cussing at police or a mayor in Tennessee may not necessarily constitute a violation of the disorderly conduct statute as such speech is generally protected by a first amendment unless it falls into specific unprotected categories such as fighting words or speech that creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition without legitimate purpose. We already talked about that. That's directly from the statute.

[00:59:36]>> Yep. Now, under Tennessee code, Tennessee the statute, disorderly conduct includes engaging in violent or threatening behavior or refusing to obey an official order or to disperse in proximity, etc., etc. Here, none of that applies here. That's directly from the statute. Additionally, making Now, here this is where they're going to the bullshit's going to come in.

[00:59:54]Additionally, making unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on unlawful activities prohibited. That's where they're going to try to argue. You didn't prevent them from carrying on their lawful activities.

[01:00:04]>> Did they have to? However, the statute does not explicitly criminalize cussing or verbal criticism unless it meets these criteria. Okay. The first amendment provides robust protection for speech including criticism of public officials even if the speech is impolite or offensive. That's black will versus chism. The court emphasized that criticism of public officials, including speech that is vehement, costic or unpleasantly sharp, is protected unless it is defamatory, threatening, obscene, or otherwise unprotected. Similarly, in Hegdor versus Katani, again, these are this is pulling from Tennessee and Sixth Circuit, which is what we're in. The court held that calling someone an [ __ ] or an idiot did not constitute fighting words and which protected speech even if it disturbed others. The court noted that while the First Amendment protects verbal criticism of public officials, it does not grant an unfettered right to disturb others through unreasonable noise. Again, what's the fact pattern? And that to apply you in a hallway walking away. No, you let's say going into a public area, maybe you were walking back around their desks. I think that's more where that particular type of language would apply.

[01:01:16]The fighting words exception of the first amendment is narrowly construed.

[01:01:19]The court clarified even vulgar insults such as calling someone a chunk is not fighting words because I mean how would that provoke a violent response? The court found that loud and off loud and offensive speech could potentially violate noise ordinances if it disturbed others but the speech itself remained protected unless it crossed into unprotected categories. So here I I just don't see how it applies. And here's the big case ultimate Houston versus Hill.

[01:01:46]How did I forget to bring this up? I've cited I used this in a jury case back in October. The Supreme Court in the city of Houston versus Hill held that first amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers emphasizing that laws penalizing speech that merely annoys or offends officers are over broad and unconstitutional. That is Houston versus Hill. How did I forget to mention that you have co-envy versus California that involved the language on a shirt and how and all throughout this conversation I forgot to bring up Houston versus Hill. Houston versus Hill is a siminal case on free speech about cussing police officers. So, in conclusion, cussing at a police where a mayor in Tennessee is generally protected by the First Amendment unless again it constitutes fighting words or creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition without legitimate purpose or involves unreasonable noise that disrupts lawful activities. You have to have the right fact pattern to meet that noise that noise part of the statute and disrupting lawful activities. I think you would have to do something that would infringe upon another citizen's act, something they're trying to accomplish. Maybe they're standing in line to talk to the lady at the window and you're acting in such a manner that it prevents the provision of services. Does that make sense?

[01:03:02]Obviously, that didn't happen. You're walking away. So again, the specific context and the manner of the speech would be critical in determining whether it would violate the disorderly conduct statute or remain constitutionally protected. Houston versus Hill is the seinal case on uh custoing at police.

[01:03:20]Are employees in a city building considered members of the public?

[01:03:26]>> Guess is no. They're public servants.

[01:03:28]And >> are employees in a city building considered members of the public? In terms of the textual language of the disorderly conduct statute >> looking at in an official capacity.

[01:03:40]That's my guess. I'm guessing no.

[01:03:42]>> All right. Let's see here. And again, this ain't Chad GPT here. This is my $320 a month um legal research platform. I mean, all I do is federal court law and constitutional law. This ain't I'm not on Google here.

[01:03:57]>> I use Google got similar.

[01:03:58]>> Well, to be honest with you, it pulls up the cases sometimes. I mean, it pulls up the cases.

[01:04:04]>> Wonderful having tools.

[01:04:05]>> All right, let's see what this comes up with. Under the textual, let's see here.

[01:04:09]Again, these are sort of summary analysis and then you got to go into the cases. it under the textual language of the Tennessee disorderly conduct statute employees in a city building may be considered members of the public if the building qualifies as a public place. So I was correct. According to statute, a public place is defined as a place to which the public or a group of persons has access and includes but is not limited to and then it talks about yeah uh the death. So now the disorderly conduct statute applies to conduct occurring in a public place and prohibits actions as engaging in violent threatening. Okay. If employees in a city building are present in areas accessible to the public, they could be considered part of the public for the purposes of the statute. However, it is important to note that determination of whether employees are members of the public may depend on specific facts of the case, including the nature of the building, the areas in question, and the accessibility of those areas to the general public or defined group.

[01:05:03]Additionally, exceptions under and then clarified that certain lawful activities such as those performed by law enforcement officers, etc., etc. Conclusion, employees in a city building may be considered members of the public depending. So, you know what? It depends. Like my law school professor said, depends. Hey, listen, Owen, I've really enjoyed doing this interview with you. This has been a long interview, but we're going to have to wrap this up. And uh but what what what did you want to ask me? But I've got to get going. What did you want to ask?

[01:05:30]>> Absolutely. If those uh if those government workers are acting at an official capacity, if they're on the clock, if they're if they're acting as their public servants, does that make them members of the public? Because I understand when a police officer puts his badge and his gun away at the end of the day and he goes home, I would consider him being a part of the public.

[01:05:49]But when an officer is in a an official building, even if it's a public space, and they are sitting there trying to attempt to give orders or acting at an official capacity, does that make them members of the public?

[01:06:03]>> I think I don't think it's a yes or no question. I think it's an analysis of what we just read there. Where are they in the building and so forth? I that's not a yes or no question, my friend.

[01:06:12]>> Fair enough.

[01:06:14]>> I've really enjoyed uh your time. Thank you for doing the interview and uh we're going to talk here soon. Okay, my friend. You have a great