A video has gone viral of the owner of a Washington state dispensary unleashing a profanity-laced verbal attack on state trooper, Yasin Anwar, who pulled over a driver near the Green Seed in Moses Lake, Washington, a marijuana shop. The owner has been identified as Amy Dalluge, who reportedly has a history of problems with the police. Some are calling for charges. As outrageous and unhinged as the verbal attack was, I do not agree that such verbal abuse should be criminally charged as a matter of free speech.
Dalluge is shown below unloading on the officer who did nothing wrong and merely pulled over a vehicle for the failure to wear a seatbelt. The driver pulled into the parking area in front of the pot shop.
Anwar remains professional and calm as Dalluge continues to rave.
“You’re on my f—ing land you b——. You better learn your f—ing place,” Dalluge continues as Anwar walks away from the pulled over vehicle. “I’ll f—ing take your wife right out of your f—ing bed, b—-. Oh wait, you’re not married, huh?”
The coverage states that “the state agency is currently investigating the video and said potential charges against Dalluge will be forwarded to the local prosecutor.”
The police chief of Moses Lake, Kevin Fuhr also said that his office filed a complaint against Dalluge following the video surfacing and gaining traction on social media.
Dalluge could face a suspended business license if she is formally charged.
The police are presumably considering a charge of disorderly conduct.
However, in my view, such a charge would be unconstitutional.
Profanity is protected speech. Citizens are allowed to denounce police. For example, in Thurairajah v. City of Fort Smith, the court heard a similar case. After an officer pulled over a driver, another driver stopped and started to scream profanities at the officer. The police charged that second driver with disorderly conduct.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the verbal abuse was still protected speech.
More recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the defendant in Wood v. Eubanks, 25 F.4th 414 (6th Cir. 2022). The defendant called police officials a slew of profane names and was charged with disorderly conduct. The court ruled that “mere epithets” directed at a law enforcement officer are not exempt from First Amendment protections as fighting words.
The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that the First Amendment protects profanity. In 1971, the Court ruled in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971), that a defendant who walked through a courthouse wearing a jacket bearing the words “F**k the Draft” was engaged in protected speech.
In City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), it addressed a man who also began to verbally abuse the police as they were attempting to carry out a traffic stop. He was charged under a city ordinance that made it unlawful to “oppose,” “abuse,” or “interrupt” an officer in the execution of his or her duty. Justice Brennan wrote for the Court in striking down the law as overbroad and violative of the First Amendment. He stressed that “[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”
Dalluge is worthy of widespread condemnation for her conduct, shown below. This is clearly bad speech, but it remains protected speech under the First Amendment.
WARNING THE VIDEO BELOW CONTAINS PROFANITY
Was this officer not conducting the initial act of a court?
What would a judge say if this behavior occurred in his court?
“Contempt of court, sometimes referred to simply as ‘contempt,’ is defined under California Penal Code section 166 as, ‘disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior committed during the sitting of a court of justice, in the immediate view and presence of the court, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority.’”
– Criminal Defense Attorney
it was meant to shock and intimidate, plus a false claim of dominion over a travelled way. interference with a public servant (peril) making it an improper forum for redress and the airing of grievances’
Stupid c*nt needed to have the $hit slapped out of her. Repeatedly.
She’s lucky; her behavior would not be well received in a dark alley at 2AM.
She enjoys the protection of the law and police every minute of every day.
Imagine that character in a post-apocalypse movie; it would be hiding and very, very quiet.
She should be thanking the police profusely for being at the end of a 9/11 call 24/7.
More probably, “in a post-apocalypse movie; her corpse would be rotting and very, very quiet.”
Then, there’s that.
I think it’s reasonable to suspect that perhaps there’s more to this story than is presented here — that there may have been prior incidents — perhaps some sort of HISTORY leading the woman to suspect that police, or particular officers, are finding excuses to be present on her property, with intent to scare off her customers and negatively impact her business of selling pot — which, like it or not, is apparently a LEGAL business in that jurisdiction.
Of courrse, that’s just speculation. But it would be interesting to hear the woman’s side of this and find out whether she can provide more information pertinent to the issue. If this matter went to court, as this article indicates some authorities are contemplating, the woman would certainly be provided the opportunity to explain her actions. In legal parlance that’s called presenting a “defense” PRIOR to judgement being rendered. But as presented by this article and the video, readers and viewers are more or less being presented only one side of the case — the prosecution — and are not hearing from the defense, which, for the purposes of this article, is not being afforded the opportunity to present its case.
It does seem, however, as if Professor Turley is PRETENDING to present a defense for the woman as her UNAPPOINTED public defender — that her actions are not illegal, But that may not be the entirety of the defense that the woman would choose to present for herself, and in any event there’s no information that the woman has accepted Professor Turley as her assigned counsel and approved the legal defense that he’s offering gratis. Some might say that a legal defense is worth no more than what one pays for it, and this instance might fit that circumstance.
.
It’s also noteworthy that at least one commenter here with knowledge of the law and legal principles — someone who may be in need of remedial legal training along with this article’s author — has considered the prosecutorial evidence presented by this one-sided presentation and jumped to judgment and sentencing by way of involuntary psychiatric detention and examination — though it’s not entirely clear if the psychiatric detention is suggested for legitimate medical purposes or as a form of punishment. It’s noteworthy that in the CIVILIZED world, psychiatric detention is no longer prescribed as a form of punishment — at least not legally. That sort of thing went out of fashion with Joseph Stalin, though it does, in fact, still occur in some backwoods lawless jurisdictions within the USA.
I would think that in the spirit of — what’s the word? — oh, yeah — JUSTICE — Judge-and-self-appointed-public-defender Turley might have attempted to contact the woman PRIOR TO PUBLICATION and offered her the opportunity to explain her side of this controversy BEFORE trying her in his makeshift flying tribunal — “flying tribunal” being an expression taught to me once upon a long time ago by a lawyer friend/writer to describe a form of galloping “justice” instantaneously dispense on horseback, often with a rope.
In the meantime, this is the first evidence I’ve ever seen of a police car equipped with a camera to record events transpiring at the driver’s window. I’m not suggesting that it’s necessarily illegal, irregular, or unusual — I’m just saying that I’ve never seen it before and don’t believe that it’s a regular feature on all police cars. So I’d be interested to find out whether that’s a standard feature for police cars in that jurisdiction and state or whether it was jury-rigged for that occasion. I’m aware that many police officers wear body cams, and that their cars sometimes have forward-pointing cameras to capture events such as a chase or what transpires when someone is pulled over.
But this is the FIRST time I’ve seen evidence of an officer being equipped with a camera in the passenger area of a car and microphone to record a citizen that approached a police car’s driver’s side window. A little background information on whether that’s a standard arrangement in that jurisdiction would be helpful, due to the possibility — keyword “possibility” — that this situation could have been some sort of a set up intended to entrap the potshop owner/operator.
My point here — for those too thick-headed to get it — is that it’s always nice to get BOTH sides of a story and a more-complete background. It’s a shame I have to point that out this deep into the 21st Century and in a legal blog no less.
Look at ralph bending over backwards to defend the loser without an ounce of evidence or even an ounce of common sense. Did the driver seem scared or worried about the office? Did the officer do anything at all wrong? Does this seem like the actions of a rogue officer, such as the 5 cops in Memphis that killed the driver? Of course not, this is just Ralph trying to prove that he is better than everyone, more sensitive than everyone and therefore smarter than everyone when in reality he is just another guy trying to do anything to make the cops look bad.
Contrary to your baseless, lying ad hominem attack, I was not “bending over backwards to defend the loser without an ounce of evidence …” I was merely pointing out a FACT of our justice system, which is that people — ALL people — are entitled to present a defense — you LOSER.
Her defense is the video, in other words case closed. Doesn’t look like the Officer video, looks like the person receiving the ticket posted it. I would bet you frequent the cannabis emporium or one like it based on your dissertation of convoluted logic.
Most cops cars have a PC mounted in them now days.
That PC comes equipped with a webcam and mic.
Looks like where it came from to me.
Most weed shop owners in Colorado who also smoke weed, built up a tolerance.
They need a high that weed doesn’t offer anymore. So opioids are the preferred choice.
This woman’s Madre and Abuela must be sooo proud.” I showed that Cop and thing or two didn’t I”.
How you become famous in an instant for all the wrong reasons.
I neglected to include that she is a Pendeja from Spanish with a bygone meaning, “a teen thinking they were an adult” and more currently “stupid”.
In a free society, it should be legal to launch a vulgar, non-violent, verbal attack on a government employee. In this case, some psycho also made an implied physical threat against a cop’s non-existent wife. Grey enough to let it slide.
Were I the cop, I wouldn’t charge her criminally. I would however consider a civil green warrant for mental illness as she expresses a risk of harm to herself or others (“wife in bed”). A day in the psyche ward would do her some good. And having to pay the lawyer to repesent her is just delicious. Caveat cookoo!
Mespo,
Protip: Shush your mouth, 😉 Never raise your voice in your house or in public about anything, even if someone is raping & mur*dering your loved ones.
The Stasi or the CCP may overhear you & haul you away on a “Health Check” to a DC Gulag or Gitmo, saying you’re just another Crazy. Just like thousand of others. (I wonder if they know the people now see who they are & what they are doing. Mil Pysop +)
Just get on the train & take those Govt shots!
” You Don’t Get a Lawyer, You a Domestic Tearoowizt “or something, Lindsey Graham.
************
https://americangulag.org/
As a law enforcement officer of many years, I agree that screaming buffoonery is protected speech. Physical interference of some sort would have probably triggered an arrest (at least in my state). Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Correction to my post…..the Driver was doing fine.
I somehow got the idea the shop owner was driving.
The Shop Owner is the problem child.
As demonstrative as she is…stepping up a little bit closer and she would have pushed the Officer…..that is an Assault.
Nothing an old fashioned Butt Kicking would not cure.
In days gone by she would have found herself in handcuffs riding in government transport to experience how the Criminal Justice system works…..one can be arrested for not wearing a seatbelt. Unless she had a way to prove she owned the property her car could be towed following an Inventory Search and were contraband found she could have been charged for that as well.
The Traffic Summons is a courtesy not a requirement.
The Trooper could have very politely arrested her.
The Professor is only looking at the speech angle all the while overlooking reality of what the many options the Trooper actually has available to him.
Any question why Law Enforcement is suffering from the inability to recruit and retain good Officers?
Had I been that Officer I would have. called for a Back Up unit and my Supervisor…..and upon their arrival I would have arrested her for the Seat Belt violation and any other violation I could find.
She definitely needed some Quiet Time to calm down before getting behind the Steering Wheel as she posed a danger to others as she was acting at the time.
Remember the Police are “To Serve AND Protect”.
Thank God your not a cop!
After seeing/hearing the video I think the situation is she’s just one of those gals with an of way of flirting & that she really has the hots for that Trooper.
A real screamer in the sack courgar, watch out for those claws boys. LOL;)
**********
0:13 / 5:11
David Allan Coe – You Never Even Called Me By My Name
In Boston, the progressive clowns in power are preferentially awarding licenses to minorities. I wonder if this woman is the beneficiary of such a program? I also wonder how she deals disgruntled customers? or supplier disputes? I would be will bet this woman uses the same charm in those situations. In a short time, she will be out of business, and will blame “racism”.
Obstruction of justice? Surely the threat against his (non-existent) wife is not protected speech.
There’s no assault. For an assault words are not sufficient without more, i.e., the present ability to commit a battery. The wife was not present and the words were conditional.
words meant to shock are grist for a terroris threat. which usurps all conditional threats, since 2001
Surely the threat against his (non-existent) wife is not protected speech.
Surely it is. The wife doesn’t exist, therefore it is impossible for it to be a “true threat”.
Even if the wife had existed, it’s unlikely that this would have counted as one, but without her existence it’s impossible.
Although probably not a crime one does have to wonder how the state authorized this loser to sell drug products. She is in essence an agent of the state by being licensed to sell pot and yet she seems highly unstable. It is hard to believe that this loser doesn’t have a criminal record due to her hatred of the police.
Also, how long does she thing she will be able to stay in business if the police don’t protect her pot house?
Yes it is protected speech and the officer was exemplary in his control. On the other hand I wonder what will happen if she calls the cops about a break-in at her place of business or even worse that there is a fire. Simple prudence would suggest a cooperative attitude in situations where abusive or outrageous speech is not necessary. Police are human beings and they can run to help or walk to help or walk at a glacial pace. Your attitude or behavior in the past may set that kind of response in place. Maybe that is not right but then again it might not be wrong either.
She needs some of her own products to calm herself down.
She must not be aware she’s attacking a fellow POC.
I would have liked to see JT go just a bit deeper, specifically regarding the case where the speech becomes threatening, albeit regarding a non-existent family member in this matter.
This is one of the rare columns I would totally agree with professor Turley. Her behavior was atrocious, but also protected speech. Kudos for the officer maintaining a professional attitude throughout the tirade. Some officers wouldn’t have handled it as professionally as this one did.
Svelaz, that’s what a Democrat operative would say!
The one and only time this guy agrees with Turley is when the good professor states that it is not illegal for some loser to berate a police office in a vulgar and disgusting manner. It is the little lefty’s backhand way of defending the cop hating loser.
Of course Svelaz would have thought differently about free speech if she were yelling that Trump won the 2020 election. According to Svelaz, free speech goes only so far.
Ha ha ha, you couldn’t help yourself! That mental illness is hard to suppress (Trump Derangement Syndrome). You’re such an obvious troll that I usually make sure to skip over your comments, but this was too funny!
Bouncedancer, If you are talking about TDS reread the comments.
She didn’t appear to do anything illegal. Unless you think that anti-heterosexual, anti-non-‘native’ anti-male hate speech is a crime. I don’t, but I also don’t think a few things that are crimes should be, like that cop tazing that idiot to make it stfu.
Imagine if some white guy was going off on a low-IQ lesbian native person in a similar manner…
It would have been exactly the same.
Other than exhibiting her disrespect for authority and dandy command of ghetto vernacular . . . one wonders what Ms. Dalluge is trying to accomplish.
The constitution is not a suicide pact..
It is for communists.
And this is relevant how?