Doing a probation check at Rosa Adriana Araujo’s house was neither fun nor routine. Araujo didn’t take kindly to it and had an extremely bad reaction, whether the probationer was her brother or her. And she let it be known.
Detectives Stewart and Teixeira attempted to put Araujo’s hands behind her back to handcuff and arrest her and she resisted, trying to twist out of their grasp and saying to Stewart, “Fuck you n****r.” She continued to resist after being handcuffed, turning her body from left to right, squeezing the officers’ fingers, spitting on them, stomping on their feet, and at one point grabbing Stewart’s crotch. She called Stewart “n****r” more than 30 times, called him a “porch monkey” several times, and told him he “needed to go back to Africa.”
As the officers started to move Araujo out of the house, she began yelling that they were raping and sexually assaulting her, as well as continuing to yell “n****r.”* She put her hand on the holster of Teixeira’s gun; he slapped it away ….
During the struggle, Araujo’s racial epithets were directed only at Stewart, not at Teixeira. Officer Wong put a spit hood on Araujo because he saw spit “flying everywhere” and hitting the detectives, and she called him a “chink.”
After a trial in 2008, the jury found Araujo guilty of the three charged felony counts of attempting to deter or resisting an executive officer in the performance of duty by means of threats or violence. The jury found not true a hate crime allegation attached to the count involving Officer Stewart.
It’s unclear why this wasn’t found to be a hate crime, although it occurred in 2008, when people were less obsessed with such matters, and the defendant was a minority such that the language might have taken differently. But neither Araujo nor her mouth improved with age or a sentence of probation.
On May 8, 2009, the probation department alleged that Araujo violated probation by failing to follow reasonable directives of the probation officer to remain still and compliant during a routine probation search. The incident occurred when probation officers attempting to conduct a routine probation search on Araujo and her brother met resistance from Araujo’s mother and brothers. Araujo yelled at the officers, accused them of hurting her mother, and, when an officer grabbed her arm to her lunging at the officers and her mother, continued to move toward them. Araujo ignored repeated directions to stop moving, called the probation officer a “bitch,” and numerous times called the police officers “pigs.”
In 2020, Araujo moved to have her felony convictions retroactively reduced to misdemeanors as “wobbler” offenses under Califorinia Penal Code, § 17(b). That didn’t go well.
Araujo concedes that her conduct in 2008—including struggling, spitting, and hitting officers—was not solely verbal and her physical conduct was not protected by the First Amendment. Araujo was also threatening violence …. [In the decision refusing to retroactively downgrade the offense to a misdemeanor], however, Araujo argues that the prosecutor and court relied solely on her offensive, racially charged words in their portrayal of the seriousness of her offenses, and the consequent denial of her motions resulted in punishment in violation of the First Amendment.
In opposition, the prosecution focused solely on her language during the 2008 incident.
At the hearing, the prosecutor did not refer to Araujo’s physical conduct; her remarks solely addressed Araujo’s words and lack of remorse. As to the former, the prosecutor urged: “T]he facts of this crime cause a visceral reaction in anyone who hears them. It is some of the most disgusting language …. She wasn’t using it in a hard ‘R’ fashion. We are in a reckoning in this country when it comes to race and racism and how we treat that. We’re in a time where we’re considering—or actually tearing down statutes [sic] of people who have had … awful records of race from hundreds of years ago. The passage of time does not forgive or forget Araujo’s actions in this case.”
The court similarly focused solely on Araujo’s racist rhetoric.
The court’s explanation of its ruling began, “The underlying crime is beyond disgusting. The vile and disgusting language that she used not only against law enforcement officers, but law enforcement officers of color, including African-American and of Asian [descent]. And this isn’t a one-off. This is someone who went to CSM, College of San Mateo. And any African-American that she saw, she also had the same reaction and disgusting behavior towards.”
The trial court refused to exercise discretion and retroactively reduce the conviction from felony to misdemeanor. The California Court of Appeals reversed.
The result is an appearance that Araujo’s motions were denied largely because of the court’s view of her speech as racist. This appearance is bolstered by the court’s statement, in announcing its ruling, “I can’t think of someone who deserves a motion to reduce and dismiss less than Araujo.” The statement is obviously hyperbole: Araujo’s egregious use of racial epithets notwithstanding, [attempts to resist an executive officer by means of threats or violence] involving no weapon and no resulting physical injury are not the most serious offenses a person can commit, and many defendants fail to remain free of further criminal sanction for 10 years. In light of the court’s further remarks— that the underlying crime was “beyond disgusting,” Araujo used “vile and disgusting language” against law enforcement officers of color, and this was consistent with her conduct toward African-Americans she encountered at CSM—it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the trial court’s abhorrence for Araujo’s offenses was due primarily to the language Araujo used and inference of racial animosity the court drew from it.
The appellate court held that as offensive as the language might be, it remained protected under the First Amendment, particularly given that the targets of her speech were police officers, such that the exercise of discretion could not be grounded in Araujo’s exercise of her constitutional right.
The trial court was required, however, to impartially exercise its discretion in light of all the relevant circumstances bearing on Araujo’s motions. A court abuses its discretion if its decision is based on impermissible factors or an incorrect legal standard…. [T]he court’s consideration of the motions appears to have been overwhelmingly influenced by its view of the language Araujo used during the offenses and in two incidents a few weeks prior to the offenses, and inferences drawn from that use of language about Araujo’s character 10 years later.
The court’s bold recognition that as offensive as Aruajo’s language was, it was protected speech, is quite remarkable given that outrage over inflammatory “hate speech” has become ubiquitous. Indeed, the killers of Ahmaud Ashbery were tried a second time, following life sentences for murder, solely to find them racists as well as killers. As much as the decision here strongly protected the defendant from the prosecution and judge’s imposing punishment based on protected speech, would this same protection of Free Speech be afforded other defendants whether under different circumstances or of a different race?
*The word was fully spelled out in the court’s opinion. I have chosen to alter it with asterisks.
No comments:
Post a Comment