"Duran's conduct ... suggests a possible motive for his detention, one upon which law enforcement officers may not legitimately rely.  The Durans contend, and the district court held, that Aguilar stopped their car at least partly in retaliation for the insult he received from Duran. If true, this would constitute a serious First Amendment violation. "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509.

The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510.


Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment. > 17 > Inarticulate and crude as Duran's conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech--such as stopping or hassling the speaker--is categorically prohibited by the Constitution," - Alex Kozinski, in a 1999 ruling here.

The difference between real conservatism and the police-state authoritarianism now cherished by Cheney Republicans has rarely been better explained. You live in a free country. The police are your employees. You pay their salary.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.