A Stamford man who was arrested for holding a sign reading “Cops Ahead” has been granted a summary judgement on two of three counts brought against the arresting officer, alleging First Amendment violations.

The case stems from an incident in 2018 when Mike Friend noticed Stamford police officer Richard Gasparino performing traffic stops. According to Friend, he saw Gasparino – who was attempting to stop drivers using handheld devices – hiding behind a utility pole on Hope Street. Gasparino was then allegedly radioing other officers when he spotted a driver using their cell phone.

Friend, believing this to be “non-transparent and underhanded,” walked a few blocks away and held up the handmade “Cops Ahead” sign to warn drivers.

Gasparino confronted him, taking away the sign and warning Friend that he would be arrested if he did it again. Friend walked further away and held up a bigger sign at which point Gasparino arrested him for “interfering with a police officer,” a misdemeanor, and then set Friend’s bail at $25,000, much higher than the usual $2,500 carried by misdemeanors.

Friend was unable to pay the bail and had to spend the night in jail. His case was reassessed at 1:30 am the following morning by a bail consultant, who instead ordered Friend released on a promise to appear, according to court documents. He was released by 2 am.

Charges against Friend were eventually dismissed by the State’s Attorney after prosecutors stated that Friend’s actions actually helped police, because “when [drivers] saw the signs, they got off their cell phones.”

Friend sued Gasparino for infringing on his First Amendment right to free speech and protest, as well as his Fourth Amendment right against malicious prosecution, but lost the initial case when the District Court judge determined holding the sign did not rise to the level of expressing an opinion. Even if it were to be considered a First Amendment Right, the court determined that Gasparino’s conduct was still acceptable because it “involved saving lives by stopping distracted drivers” which could be achieved only without Friend’s interference.

Friend appealed the decision in 2021 and requested a summary judgment from the appellate court.

In 2023, the appellate court overturned three of the five counts against Gasparino, including the First and Fourth Amendment violations. In evaluating the accusation of malicious prosecution, the court found that Gasparino “lacked probable cause” for the arrest, and cited case law that a lack of probable cause is enough to determine malicious prosecution.

In the matter of freedom of speech, the court determined that the sign did not fall under generally accepted First Amendment exceptions and that the district court “was not entitled to create a new ‘First Amendment Free Zone’ that left it unprotected.” The court specifically noted that case law does not exist to determine that only speech which rises to the level of opinion of public concern counts as protected.

In the judgment, the court also cited City of Houston v Hill which stated: “The 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.” The court then continued, “but a citizen does not need to show that a police practice is unlawful — or that it deviates from some notion of propriety — in order to object to it. Nor did Friend need to express his objection in a conventional way.”

The overturned counts were then returned to the trial court to consider whether Friend should win the case. On July 31 2024, the U.S. District Court awarded Friend a win on two of those three counts. The third count will be tried at a later date.

Additionally, Gasparino’s request for qualified immunity was denied. Gasparino claimed that he was immune from judgment because he did not realize at the time of the arrest that he was breaking the law. The court, however, determined that laws of free speech were settled long before the arrest, and “any public employee would have known better.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.