Well, this is a bit of a doozy. This case — via the Institute for Justice — involves a possible First Amendment violation but somehow ends with a judicial blessing of cops who make things up after the fact to justify an arrest that has already taken place.
That’s literally what happened here. Mason Murphy was walking down a Missouri road when he was accosted by Officer Michael Schmitt. From the opening of this very unfortunate decision [PDF]:
Schmitt stopped his car, approached Murphy, and asked Murphy to identify himself. Murphy refused to identify himself, and Schmitt put Murphy in handcuffs after nine minutes of argument. Murphy asked why Schmitt arrested him, and Schmitt refused to answer.
So far, it would appear no criminal act was committed and that the cuffing of Murphy by Schmitt was in retaliation for Murphy’s refusal to identify himself and, First Amendment-wise, his refusal to shut up.
…
deleted by creator
Yes, I’m fucking serious. Most “law” isn’t criminal law, so that removes a big chunk that we don’t have to worry about. Most criminal law is very specific about the elements that define the crime, exceptions to those elements, defenses for the crime, etc. There are relatively few instances where someone gets convicted for something non-shiesty they didn’t know was a crime or because the laws around the crime were ambiguous.