Court Opinion

ID: 9494232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:32:46.366369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:17.888029
License: Public Domain

BERZON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join Judge Reinhardt’s opinion with the following caveat: To me, it is all-important that the indictment charged Poo-cha only with “using language in a [manner] that was likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” not with violating any other provision of the applicable regulation, such as “engaging] in a display or act that is ... physically threatening.” Further, while a reference to “speech” might include expressive conduct and thereby encompass gestures that could be interpreted as physically threatening, “language” does not. So, whatever one thinks about whether or not the evidence would sustain a conclusion that Poocha’s clenching of his fists and sticking out his chest *1084constituted a threat that he would physically attack one of the officers, that is not the question before us. Any such physical threat, if it in fact occurred, would not be protected by the First Amendment, I would agree. But focusing on what Poo-cha said and the context in which he did so, I agree with Judge Reinhardt that his speech was protected under the First Amendment, as it was addressed to police officers and concerned their conduct.1
I note as well, with regard to Judge Tashima’s central point, that the speech was directed at the officers, not at anyone else, and there is nothing to indicate that anyone in the crowd other than Poocha’s companions even heard what he said. Moreover, Ranger Lober’s explanation to Ranger Ingram as to why things were not in control — “things weren’t in control. He had been trying to get Mr. Poocha to calm down and leave the scene ... ” — was related only to Poocha, not to the crowd in general. In other words, this case was tried, and could only have been tried, on a “fighting words” theory, not an “incitement to riot” theory. So the focus of Judge Reinhardt’s opinion upon the effect of the speech on the officers is quite correct, because there is not substantial evidence to sustain a conclusion that Pooeha’s language had caused, or was immediately likely to cause, any impact on the behavior of the crowd as a whole.

. It is worth flagging one evidentiary point in this regard: The officer to whom the hostile gestures were directed, Ranger Lober, did not testify that they occurred; the testimony came from a different officer. That the officer who was the object of the hostile gestures apparently did not see them would certainly undercut any physical threat theory and may be why the charges related only to the undisputed language, not to the hostile gestures.