No charges filed for racial slur on Rochester Bridge – ABC 6 News

(ABC 6 News) – The Olmsted County District Attorney has announced that no charges will be filed against four teens suspected of uttering a racial slur on a Rochester bridge near Century High School on April 14, 2024.

Previous story: RPD finds suspect in April racial slur incident on bridge – ABC 6 News – kaaltv.com

On Monday, Rochester police announced they had identified three 16-year-old boys and a 17-year-old as suspects in the incident and would refer the case to the Olmsted County District Attorney’s Office for review and possible charges.

The public prosecutor made the following statement on its decision:

Olmsted County District Attorney Mark Ostrem announced today that no criminal or criminal charges will be filed in connection with the racial slur incident that occurred near Century High School on April 14, 2024.

In the early hours of April 14, 2024, a motorist noticed a racist slur on a plastic sign
cups on the pedestrian bridge over East Circle Drive near Century High School. Shortly afterwards, a
A police officer drove by, noticed the insult and immediately removed it.
This bridge has long served as a message board for other messages, typically messages of support for
local teams or other school events. Before the morning of April 14, a harmless message
on the bridge. It was obvious that in the night hours before dawn on April 14,
someone had gone onto the bridge and moved the cups to convey the racist insult.

The Rochester Police Department investigated the incident. One after the other, several young
Adults who were believed to frequent the area, investigators were able to confidentially identify four young people
Suspected as perpetrator of insult. This office has the investigation, the relevant laws,
and jurisdiction. No criminal charges are being filed in connection with this incident.

Previous story: Rochester students speak out after racial slur incident – ​​ABC 6 News – kaaltv.com

This office reviewed four primary legal theories in response to the incident.
Property, threats of violence, harassment and improper conduct. For various reasons
cannot meet the necessary burden of proof to establish charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Any theory
is briefly explained below.

Damage to property. The easiest theory of accusation to eliminate is damage to property
Property fails because there was no damage to the bridge or other property. As mentioned above, this is
Bridge is a very common “billboard” for messages with red cups. In fact, there was an existing
message that was rearranged to spell out the insult, and a week later the community published another
Message of healing. Almost since the bridge was built, it has been a canvas for messages.
As much as the community dislikes the news of April 14, no new “damage” has been caused.

Previous story: Public display of racist slur sparks outrage in Rochester – ABC 6 News – kaaltv.com

Threat of violence. The racist insult on the bridge consisted of one word. In this case, that one word was
does not become a threat. Even this one word alone could not be used by a
reasonable fact-finder as the target of one or more persons. Minnesota has developed significant case law
Defining the parameters for threats of violence and certainly an identified victim and a
specific threat of violence are crucial elements. The threat must have a certain immediacy towards a
also victims.

Harassment is not a valid charge, primarily because it was only one incident.
Harassment law criminalizes various types of criminal behavior. However,
generally criminalizes serial crimes, not a single event, without specific information
about a target victim and the intended reaction. These facts are not available here.

Previous story: Racist slur written on bridge near Century High School – ABC 6 News – kaaltv.com

Disorderly conduct. This is a little closer to a justifiable charge, albeit a misdemeanor.
This theory is also not convincing.

The relevant elements of the disorderly conduct law are 1) The defendant engaged in offensive or
offensive language that tends to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others. 2) The
The defendant knew or believed or had reasonable grounds to know that the conduct
tend to disturb or upset others. 3) The defendant’s act took place in a public or private place.
While the behavior/message here fulfills all three elements, the further analysis is whether this
Freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The analysis of the First Amendment begins with the recognition that deeply offensive statements
In order to prosecute an expression of opinion, it is not enough that it is hateful or that it violates the legal
Definition of a crime. Criminalized speech must also fall under a recognized exception to the First
Change protection.

There is an exception to the First Amendment that is relevant to this case: the so-called “Fighting Words Doctrine.”

The Supreme Court of the United States has written decades of rulings on the doctrine of fighting words. Free
The speech does not protect fighting words which, by their mere utterance, cause injury or tend to do so.
to cause an immediate breach of the peace. In this development, various words, expressions and actions
was evaluated and classified as protected “freedom of expression”.

The context of the expression is a key element. If the expression is intended as a direct insult to someone or
Call for a “fight”, it is not protected. Since there is no identifiable “recipient” of the expression changes
in the context of the statement made on April 14 and falls under the protection of the First Amendment.

The racist slur was particularly offensive in this case. Few other offensive words are so closely
associated with a history of violence. But even this very offensive word is not automatically a
Fighting word in every context.

The message was left on the bridge without any further context, and the teenagers fled the scene before
it could be discovered. Although the message would obviously offend anyone who sees it, one fact is
Finder would not reasonably expect it to provoke a disturbance of the peace. The people who drove
under the shield at dawn would not be expected to disturb the peace or commit crimes in
Answer: The message on the footbridge was protected speech.

Minnesota also has other crimes against prejudice and hate on its books. However, these all criminalize
aggressive behavior based on perceived race, gender, religion or other protected
classes. The present conduct did not constitute an attack within the meaning of our laws.

Olmsted District Attorney Mark Ostrem commented: “I am deeply disturbed that anyone in this
Community could be so blind to find humor or joy in this kind of behavior. We are better
than that. But we evaluate incidents based on the law, not our internal reactions to the event. We
will continue to work with community leaders to help us grow through this event.”