ACLU Fights Police on Profanity Arrests

Pittsburgh – Erica Upshaw was having one of those days.

School had just let out and the mother-of-three was rushing a load of groceries to her sister’s house when she was pulled over by an officer who said she made an incomplete stop.

When a police officer told her that her driver’s license was suspended, Upshaw used a curse word to describe her day to that point. She ended up in jail for her choice of words.

‘It was so humiliating,’ said Upshaw, 28. As it happens, Upshaw’s suspension was due to a computer glitch and nothing more.

The American Civil Liberties Union has recently filed two lawsuits, one on behalf of Upshaw, accusing two Pittsburgh-area police departments of violating people’s right to free speech.

The lawsuits are intended to warn police across the nation they should not arrest people simply because they don’t like someone’s language, said Witold Walczak, executive director of the ACLU’s Pittsburgh chapter. He said officers need to realize they create tremendous stress on people and should expect emotions to spill out.

Police dismiss the charge that disorderly conduct laws are being misused, saying officers are simply trying to do their job. Officers may feel it’s necessary to arrest someone on a minor charge to prevent the person from committing more serious crimes, said Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police.

‘The police don’t write the laws, they don’t prosecute the laws, they just enforce the laws,’ said Pasco. ‘Perhaps they (the ACLU) would address changing the law rather than harassing the police.’

The ACLU’s initiative stems from a 1996 class-action lawsuit against Pittsburgh police over alleged widespread abuse and misconduct. Walczak said at least a dozen of those complaints involved profanity arrests.

The police department agreed to federal oversight and the city agreed to settle 32 lawsuits for a total of $275,000 last month.

The ACLU said it was receiving five or six complaints a year from western Pennsylvanians who were arrested for swearing, said Walczak. Upshaw’s arrest on July 15, 2000, by the North Braddock police was one of them.

In Pennsylvania, a disorderly conduct statute makes it a crime to use obscene language, though the courts say the provision applies to sexually obscene speech, Walczak said.

The ACLU’s second lawsuit stems from the arrest of Amy Johnson, 27, a Chatham University student, and Gregory Lagrosa, 29, a University of Pittsburgh student. According to the suit, Johnson swore at a passing Homestead police patrol car.

Johnson claims in the suit that the car came dangerously close to the couple as they walked through a crosswalk. Their charges were subsequently dismissed.

Man Can’t Enforce Agreement Over Dog

Philadelphia – A divorced man cannot have visitation rights to see his former dog Barney, because state law does not allow visitation rights to personal property, the Superior Court has ruled.

“In seeking ‘shared custody’ and a ‘visitation’ arrangement, appellant appears to treat Barney, a dog, as a child,” Judge Frank J. Montemuro wrote. “Despite the status owners bestow on their pets, Pennsylvania law considers dogs to be personal property.”

The court said allowing Anthony Desanctis to visit Barney would be creating an arrangement analogous to visiting a table or a lamp.

The court’s decision in Desanctis v. Pritchard, PICS Case No. 02-1065 (Pa. Super. July 5, 2002) Montemuro, J. (6 pages), affirmed the ruling of the Chester County trial court.

Desanctis and Lynda Pritchard were married in 1991 and divorced in October 2000. During their marriage they purchased Barney from the SPCA.

As part of their divorce, they entered into an agreement “that purported to be a property settlement, but dealt primarily with Barney’s future.”

The agreement, which was never incorporated into the divorce decree, provides that Pritchard would get full custody of Barney. The agreement also provided an arrangement allowing Desanctis to visit with Barney.

However, Pritchard moved to Bucks County in March 2000 and no longer allowed Desanctis to visit with Barney. Desanctis filed suit in May 2001, asking the trial court to grant shared custody of the dog.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, and Desanctis appealed.

In the appeal, Montemuro said the agreement between Pritchard and Desanctis explicitly awarded the property, Barney, to Pritchard.

“Appellant … overlooks the fact that any terms set forth in the agreement are void to the extent that they attempt to award custodial visitation with or shared custody of personal property,” Montemuro wrote. “The result is clearly not contemplated by the statute.”

“By the clear and unambiguous terms of the agreement, Barney and his social schedule belong exclusively to appellee.”

President Judge Joseph A. Del Sole and Judge Debra M. Todd joined Montemuro in the unanimous decision.

Yardley attorneys Jennifer C. Etzrodt and John M. Larason represented Pritchard. West Chester lawyer John S. Carnes represented Desanctis.

D.A. Drops Charges Against Massacre Defendants