Can you cuss at a police officer in Mississippi? The First Amendment protects a great deal of criticism directed at police, including criticism they don't want to hear. Being disrespectful doesn't automatically make someone guilty of a crime.
But in Sendelweck v. State, a man's disorderly-conduct charge was thrown out because the charging document relied on his yelling and cussing. His conviction for resisting arrest still stood. That sounds contradictory until you look at the two different questions the courts had to answer.
In the video below, Mississippi criminal-defense lawyer Matt Eichelberger explains what happened, why the distinction mattered, and what the case tells us about protected speech and lawful arrests.
Watch the full video on YouTube.
It started with two beagles
In July 2009, Brandon police received a complaint about dogs going into a neighbor's garage and pulling things out. An officer went to the home where the dogs lived and told a babysitter to keep the two beagles in the backyard or he would have to take them.
Steve Sendelweck was cutting his mother's grass when his daughter called about the officer's visit. He contacted his wife and asked her to call the police so he could straighten things out. Sergeant Allen Parfait went to speak with him.
From there, the two men gave very different accounts.
According to Sergeant Parfait, Sendelweck approached him, pointed a finger about half an inch from his face, and began cussing and demanding to speak with the dog catcher. The sergeant described him as threatening and combative. He testified that Sendelweck repeatedly refused directions to step back and calm down, then pulled his arm away and walked away when the sergeant tried to arrest him.
Sendelweck disputed important parts of that account. He said the sergeant grabbed his arm without explaining that he was under arrest. He admitted initially pulling his arm away, but said he offered his hands for handcuffing once he understood what was happening. He also disputed the officer's account of the pepper spray.
Those differences mattered. The trial judge had to decide whose account to believe.
Why one charge was dismissed
Sendelweck was initially convicted of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest in Brandon Municipal Court. He appealed and received a new trial in the County Court of Rankin County.
That's where the case took its unusual turn.
The affidavit charging him with disorderly conduct said he refused to stop yelling and cursing. The county court found that this language failed to charge an offense under the disorderly-conduct statute. It focused on his speech and left out the conduct that the officer described at trial.
The judge dismissed that charge. But the judge did not dismiss the separate charge of resisting arrest.
Two questions, two different answers
To understand why, separate these questions:
- Did the disorderly-conduct charging document properly accuse Sendelweck of a crime?
- Did the facts give the officer a lawful basis to arrest him?
The county court answered the first question no and the second question yes.
The judge believed the sergeant's account of the confrontation, including the close-range conduct and repeated refusal to back away. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the judge found that the officer had a lawful basis for the arrest even though the affidavit failed to charge that conduct properly.
The judge then convicted Sendelweck of resisting a lawful arrest. The Mississippi Court of Appeals upheld that conviction in 2012. The sentence included a $500 fine, a suspended sixty-day jail term, and two years of unsupervised probation.
The dismissal of one charge did not erase the facts that supported the arrest or automatically defeat the other charge.
What the case says about cussing at police
The Court of Appeals recognized that the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism directed at police officers. It also agreed that the affidavit's allegation about refusing to stop yelling and cursing did not state an offense under the statute.
That protection matters. An officer's irritation or offense does not, by itself, establish a crime.
But the court distinguished those words from the conduct the trial judge found had occurred. The decision relied on the confrontation and refusal to back away under the circumstances described in the testimony the judge accepted.
This doesn't mean every statement directed at an officer is protected. Threats, for example, raise different questions. It also doesn't mean every police order automatically has a lawful basis. The statute applied in Sendelweck required an intent to provoke a breach of the peace or circumstances that could lead to one. An order by itself did not settle that question.
Consider a different situation: someone stands across the street, criticizes an officer, and uses profanity, but neither threatens the officer nor interferes with what the officer is doing. That's a different set of facts from the confrontation the trial court found in Sendelweck. The decision does not turn every angry comment into disorderly conduct.
The sequence matters
There is another important limit to this decision. The courts first found a lawful basis for the arrest. They then considered the resistance during that arrest.
The ruling does not say that an officer can turn an unlawful arrest into a lawful one because someone later pulls away. Whether the arrest was lawful remained part of the resisting-arrest analysis.
That is also why deciding for yourself, in the middle of an encounter, that an arrest must be unlawful carries real risk. A judge may later accept a different account of what happened or reach a different legal conclusion. Challenging the arrest through a lawyer gives the court a chance to examine those facts and legal questions without making the physical confrontation the place where the issue gets decided.
Why the trial judge's findings mattered
Sendelweck's case went through four courts: Brandon Municipal Court, Rankin County Court, Rankin County Circuit Court, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals.
The county court conducted the new trial. The later appeals reviewed that court's decision on the record. They did not provide another opportunity to start over with live witnesses.
The Court of Appeals gave deference to the trial judge's factual findings because they were supported by substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence. That made the judge's decision to believe the sergeant's account especially important. The outcome depended on the facts the court accepted, as well as the legal rules it applied.
Two lessons from Sendelweck
First, the First Amendment protects people who criticize police. Cussing and committing a crime are not the same thing.
Second, a dismissed charge does not automatically establish that the arrest was unlawful or wipe out a separate resisting-arrest charge. You have to look at what happened, what justified the arrest, and what the State actually charged and proved.
If you're facing a criminal charge in Mississippi, Eichelberger Law Firm can review the facts and legal issues in your case. Call 601-292-7940 to discuss your situation.
Read the case
Sendelweck v. State, 101 So. 3d 734 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), No. 2011-KM-01190-COA, decided November 27, 2012. The charging-document and arrest distinction appears in paragraphs 21–29; the disposition appears in paragraph 30.
The featured image is an editorial illustration. The video’s labeled stock footage illustrates general ideas and does not show the people or events in Sendelweck. Footage credits appear in the YouTube description.
This post and video provide general legal information, not advice about an individual case. Reading or watching does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes depend on the facts and applicable law.