In a landmark case that has raised important questions about free speech and the role of law enforcement, a Vermont man named Gregory Bombard has reached a $175,000 settlement with the state after being arrested for giving a middle finger gesture to a state trooper in 2018. The incident sparked controversy and debate over whether such an expression is protected under the First Amendment.
According to reports, Bombard was first pulled over by Trooper Jay Riggen after he believed he had been given the middle finger. Bombard denied making the gesture initially but later admitted to doing so when asked again by Riggen. The trooper then arrested him on charges of disorderly conduct.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) took up Bombard's case, arguing that his First Amendment rights had been violated. They filed a lawsuit against the Vermont State Police and Riggen in 2021.
The settlement includes $100,000 in damages to Bombard and $75,000 in attorneys' fees for the ACLU and FIRE. The state of Vermont did not admit to any wrongdoing or liability as part of the agreement.
This case has significant implications for free speech rights and the actions of law enforcement. Previously, a federal appeals court had ruled that giving someone the middle finger is a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment. However, this ruling was not universally accepted or applied consistently by law enforcement agencies and courts.
Bombard's case highlights the importance of upholding constitutional protections for all citizens, regardless of whether their expression may be considered offensive or disrespectful to some. It also underscores the need for transparency and accountability in law enforcement actions, particularly when it comes to arrests based on controversial or subjective grounds.
The settlement marks a victory for Bombard and his legal team, who fought tirelessly to defend his First Amendment rights. However, it also raises important questions about the broader implications of this case for free speech and law enforcement in Vermont and beyond.
