Recognizing claim for retaliation for exercise of
First and Sixth Amendment rights where officer falsified accident report to retaliate against
plaintiff for recording previous incident with another officer and exposing that officer’s perjury
in criminal trial in which plaintiff was acquitted.
In context of recording police, court holds that Oregon statute generally prohibiting audio recordings of oral conversations “if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained” is constitutional.
Protestors’ First Amendment claims rejected on ground that demonstration presented a clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness; verbal dispersal order not required before officers may clear the area.
Officer fired two projectiles, skipping them off the ground at retreating protestors, striking plaintiff in the eye causing a complete loss of vision in that eye; court rejects First Amendment retaliation claim on ground that officer did not single plaintiff out either as an individual or as part of a group; court argues one cannot simultaneously single out victims and indiscriminately spray a crowd.
Whether officers singled protestor out due to retaliatory animus or were simply acting according to understanding of their responsibilities when they allegedly pepper sprayed him and shot him with rubber bullet could not be resolved on motion to dismiss protestor’s First Amendment retaliation claims against officers on basis of qualified immunity.
Evangelist arrested when he refused to move as ordered by officers when others abused and physically assaulted him; court reverses denial of preliminary injunction, finding content-based heckler’s veto: defined as “government silences particular speech or a particular speaker due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience.”
Plaintiff had posted a “joke” on Facebook claiming that deputies would shoot “the infected” with Covid on sight; was arrested for terrorism; language was protected by First Amendment, deputies not entitled to qualified immunity) (Note: this case was previously reported in the 11/21/23 Actionable Conduct report. The earlier decision was withdrawn and superseded by this opinion.
Where county jail employees opened and scanned legal mail into computer that contained memory chip, they could access mail outside of detainee’s presence in the future in violation of his First Amendment rights.
Plaintiff had posted a “joke” on Facebook claiming that deputies would shoot “the infected” with Covid on sight; was arrested for terrorism; language was protected by First Amendment, deputies not entitled to qualified immunity.