A retaliatory arrest occurs when a police officer exercises their state-sanctioned power to take you into custody as a direct “punishment” for engaging in protected speech. In Chicago, these incidents frequently manifest when a citizen records a police interaction on their mobile device or verbally challenges an officer’s conduct during a street stop.
While an officer may officially cite “disorderly conduct” or “obstruction of justice,” if the true motivation for the arrest was to silence your protest or stop your filming, you may possess a valid federal civil rights claim.
Speech is not obstruction: your rights in public spaces
Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, every resident of Chicago has a clearly established right to monitor and criticize the actions of law enforcement in public areas. This protection is robust and covers two primary forms of engagement:
- The right to record: As long as you are not physically interfering with their duties, you can record police activity in any public space in the City of Chicago.
- The right to verbal protest: You are legally allowed to swear at, criticize, or question a police officer’s authority without fear of a lawful arrest.
- The right to peaceable assembly: Observing a police scene from a safe distance is a protected activity that does not constitute “loitering” or “interference.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that verbal criticism of the police is a core component of American liberty, regardless of whether the language used is considered “rude” or “unpleasant.”
The “pretext” trap
In many local cases, the CPD will utilize minor city ordinances (such as “walking in the roadway” or “disorderly conduct”) as a pretext to justify an unconstitutional arrest. However, if your legal team can prove that other individuals engaged in the same minor behavior were not arrested, but you were targeted because you possessed a camera, the arrest is deemed unconstitutional.
Filing a Section 1983 claim
A retaliatory arrest is a violation of a federal law that allows citizens to sue government officials for constitutional infringements. To win these cases, you must prove that the officer lacked “probable cause” or that their retaliatory intent was the primary driver behind the arrest.
Winning a Section 1983 claim not only provides financial compensation for your ordeal but also holds the City of Chicago accountable for the misconduct of its officers. Because these cases involve complex “qualified immunity” defenses, you should consult with a civil rights litigator who understands the issue.
