Knowles v. the State
340 Ga. App. 274
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Traffic stop for no tag light; driver exited and officers smelled alcohol and performed field-sobriety tests.
- Knowles was a backseat passenger observed "fidgeting" and reaching into a bag; officer asked him to exit and frisked him for weapons.
- After exiting, Knowles yelled, cursed, said he was "just trying to give [his] damn ID," and later said “fuck you” to the officer.
- Officer did not feel threatened, found Knowles unarmed, ran his ID (no warrants), then arrested Knowles for disorderly conduct based on his profane remarks.
- Search incident to arrest uncovered a crack pipe and suspected cocaine; Knowles moved to suppress arguing the arrest lacked probable cause.
- Trial court denied suppression; Court of Appeals granted interlocutory review and reversed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had probable cause to arrest Knowles for disorderly conduct under OCGA § 16-11-39(a)(3) ("fighting words") | Knowles: Profanity directed at a police officer, without more, does not constitute fighting words and therefore cannot support probable cause for arrest. | State: Opprobrious/abusive words directed to an officer can constitute fighting words; no special rule should apply because the target is police. | Reversed: Court held the facts did not support a finding of fighting words; profanity alone in these circumstances did not provide probable cause. The fact the words were directed at a trained officer weighed against a fighting-words finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (fighting-words doctrine: words likely to provoke immediate breach of the peace)
- Hill v. Colorado, 482 U.S. 451 (police and public-speech interactions; discussion of protected criticism of police and restraint expected of officers)
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (profane speech can be protected; context matters)
- Cunningham v. State, 260 Ga. 827 (Georgia recognition of fighting-words concept)
- Tucker v. State, 233 Ga. App. 314 (context and surrounding circumstances crucial to fighting-words analysis)
- Buffkins v. City of Omaha, 922 F.2d 465 (officers are expected to absorb some verbal abuse; use of insulting words alone may not be fighting words)