This sounds paranoid but: Trust no one

I really like writing this blog and I've been writing it on and off for about 14 years.

That's right - 14 YEARS! 

Some topics are better than others but what has really been helpful is this new AI set up they have going.  

Specifically, Chatgpt has come in handy helping with identifying topic, cases, and statutes relevant to the topics I'm writing about.

The problem with these AI search engines like ChatGPT is that you can't really depend on them for accuracy when researching law or things of a legal nature.  Sometimes, it even creates cases out of thin air.

Wait, what?!  

You mean to tell me that AI search engines spit out caselaw that doesn't even exist or out and out misleads researchers?!

Called Hallucinations and yes, that's exactly what I mean.  

Because LLMs (i.e. "Large Language Models" which is the official classification for AI platforms) create hallucinations with reckless abandon, you have to be extra careful when using anything you find on an AI search engine.

For example, do you remember Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-CV-1461 (PKC), 2023 WL 4114965 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023)?  In Mata, lawyers submitted a brief with six case citations (and quotes) that did not exist; they were generated/made up by ChatGPT.  The court imposed a $5,000 fine on the lawyers and their firm (which is peanuts).  The judge found they acted in bad faith, including conscious avoidance of verifying the non-existence when there were signs the cases might be fake.  

Or how about United States v. Cohen, 724 F. Supp. 3d 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2024).  In that case Michael Cohen admitted he had given his lawyer fake citations generated by Google Bard. The lawyer then submitted them.  The court called the inclusion of the fake cases “embarrassing and certainly negligent, perhaps even grossly negligent.” But the judge determined there was no intention to deceive, i.e., not in bad faith, so no sanctions were imposed.

Other cases where attorneys used holographic cases (ie. cases generated by AI search engines that don't exist) include:

Garner v. Kadince, 20250188-CA (Utah Ct. App., filed May 22, 2025): Their petition included case-citations that were found to be fabricated or “hallucinated” by AI (ChatGPT). One example: Royer v. Nelson, 2007 UT App 74, 156 P.3d 789, a case that does not exist in any legal database except in AI outputs.

Wadsworth v. Walmart (D. Wyo. 2025): Three lawyers cited fake cases that were AI-generated in a personal injury lawsuit against Walmart. 

Alabama Prison Litigation (2025): Butler Snow firm cited entirely fabricated Eighth Amendment cases.

My personal opinion is that any attorney that doesn't Shepardize ALL cases cited in legal documents should be, in the very least, suspended for at least a 6 months.  They should also be required to pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (aka MPRE) before being again allowed to practice law. 

But how does this all affect me, the legal blogger?

Over the last year, I've blogged about a whole range of legal topics.  In a few instances, I've found, through ChatGPT and other AI search engines, not a few discrepancies.

For example, recently I wrote a blog about tailgating and after running a search in ChatGPT for cases related thereto, I got a number of cases back presumably on the subject.

One case in particular, Shuck v. Means, was particularly difficult to locate on the Internet and I asked ChatGPT:

 is Shuck v. Means, 302 P.2d 217 (Okla. 1956) a real case and does it have anything to do with tailgating

To which ChatGPT responded:

You're in for a quick clarification—“Shuck v. Means, 302 P.2d 217 (Okla. 1956)” does not appear to be a real case, at least not under that name or citation. 

A few paragraphs later, I ran into a similar problem when after a query ChatGPT returned a case (in this instance, Baker v. Rushing).  After an extensive search on the Internet of not finding that case, I asked ChatGPT:

is Baker v. Rushing, 104 S.E.2d 165 (N.C. 1958) correct in this format

To which Chatpgt responded: 

Yes — that citation format is correct. Here’s the breakdown:

• Case Name: Baker v. Rushing

• Reporter Volume: 104

• Reporter Abbreviation: S.E.2d (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

• Page Number: 165

• Court and Year: (N.C. 1958) → North Carolina Supreme Court, 1958

So it should appear as:

📖 Baker v. Rushing, 104 S.E.2d 165 (N.C. 1958).

That is a valid, properly formatted Bluebook citation.

Now, to the untrained eye, that would look like this is a real/actual case and a rookie researcher would stop there.  I mean, it says it's the right Bluebook format - so that should mean it's a real case.  However, after I couldn't find Baker v. Rushing, 104 S.E.2d 165 (N.C. 1958), I went back to ChatGPT and again asked:

is Baker v. Rushing, 104 S.E.2d 165 (N.C. 1958) a real case

 To which Chatgpt responded:

Great question — “Baker v. Rushing, 104 S.E.2d 165 (N.C. 1958)” does not appear to be a valid or real case citation, at least based on available legal databases and authoritative sources.

...which is annoying - and definitely misleading - given that ChatGPT first said the case was in the correct Bluebook citation format (which was technically true) but then acknowledged that it screwed up and returned a case that was neither valid or real.

Soooooo aggravating! 

Not wanting to drop the issue, I again asked ChatGPT:

if Baker v. Rushing, 104 S.E.2d 165 (N.C. 1958) is not a valid or real case, why did you return it in my initial query 

To which ChatGPT responded:

That’s a very fair question — and you’re right to call this out.

Here’s what likely happened:

When you first asked about tailgating-related cases, I tried to retrieve examples of real case law, but I sometimes draw from patterns in legal writing rather than verified court databases. “Baker v. Rushing, 104 S.E.2d 165 (N.C. 1958)” looks like a perfectly plausible citation (correct reporter, correct jurisdiction, correct year), but after checking, there’s no record of such a case.

This is what’s known as a hallucination (or “holographic case”), where I construct something that looks real based on legal citation formats and similar case names — but it doesn’t actually exist.

The main reasons this happens are:

• Predictive nature of my training: I was trained to generate text that follows patterns, including how case citations are written, but I don’t have perfect access to every case law database.

• Similarity to real cases: There are real cases with names like Baker v. [Someone] and reporters like S.E.2d from 1958, so it can produce something that seems legitimate.

• Overconfidence in early responses: Without doing a real-time case law search (like we just did for your follow-ups), I might give examples that aren’t verified.

This tends to happen more and more and as I use AI to help with blogging, I now ask whether particular cases returned are real before including them in my blog.

But this got me to thinking and I asked ChatGPT:  

why does chatgpt return cases in a search that don't exist?

To which ChatGPT responded:

That’s a great question — and it’s one of the most important issues when using AI for legal research.

ChatGPT (and other LLMs) sometimes return cases that don’t exist because of the way large language models work:

• Pattern Matching, Not Databases:
  I don’t have a built-in legal case database. Instead, I was trained on lots of legal writing and I generate responses by predicting what looks like a plausible answer. If you ask for a case citation, I try to produce one that fits the pattern of a real case — correct reporter, volume, page — even if it’s made up.

• Pressure to Be Helpful:
  If you ask for “a case where X happened,” I try to fulfill that request. If I don’t have a known case in memory, I may invent one that sounds right rather than say “I don’t know,” especially if your prompt suggests that such a case must exist.

• Legal Citations Are Predictable:
  Because case citations follow a rigid format (e.g., Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2020)), I can generate something that looks very convincing — even to experienced lawyers. But if you check the reporter, the case might not exist.

• Contextual Merging (Hallucination):
  Sometimes I blend real cases. For example, I might take facts from Case A and a holding from Case B and give it a citation that matches neither. This is not intentional — it’s a statistical artifact.

This problem is exactly what led to the high-profile Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023) case — where lawyers used ChatGPT to write a brief, it cited six fake cases, and the court sanctioned them.

✅ Best Practice When Using AI for Legal Research:

• Treat all AI-supplied case names and citations as leads, not authorities.

• Verify every case in a trusted source (Westlaw, Lexis, Fastcase, Casetext, etc.) before using it.

• If you can’t find it in an official reporter or database, assume it doesn’t exist.

And there you have it - even ChatGPT knows it lies to/misleads people.  Well, maybe not out and out lie but returns results that are not accurate or existent.

 

For this reason, 

• always verify results, 
• always recheck results, and 
• never trust that the bot you're talking to is telling you the truth

...because what does an artificial intelligence know about "truth" when any/all information is true to an AI bot?

 

 

Looks Like He's Having a REALLY Bad Hair Day

I don't know what it is but lately there have been a spat of videos online of people who are just freaking the freak out!

If I didn't know better, I'd say the guys who manufactured COVID are at it again and have manugactured a crazy driver gene geared to cause crazy drivers to just flip out at the slightest things.

Take the guy whose video I was watching the other day.

Seems the driver of a Mercedes Benz slammed on his breaks for whatever reason in front of a Truck, got out of his car with gun in hand, walks back to Truck driver and starts treatening Truck and his wife with gun in hand - all the while you can hear Truck driver saying to wife, "Should I shoot him?!"

Now, that's a short version and Benz got arrested for a number of crimes not the least of which would be armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

The bigger question is would Truck driver be justified in defending himself (and his wife) had he shot the Benz driver?

In most states, a person may use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent:

• Imminent death, or

• Imminent serious bodily injury, or

• In some states, certain forcible felonies (armed robbery, aggravated assault, carjacking, etc.).

The key words are:

• Imminent (happening right now)

• Reasonable belief (what an ordinary person in that position would believe)

As it is applied under this set of facts, imminent threat exists where a person:

• Exits a vehicle

• Approaches another occupied vehicle

• Is armed with a firearm (or, I suspect, anthing that can be used as a weapon)

• Points or waves that firearm

• Reaches inside the vehicle

• Attempts to seize property

• Demands occupants exit the vehicle

That is typically treated as an armed felony in progress (e.g., aggravated assault, attempted armed robbery, carjacking).

A gun present + aggressive advancement + reaching into an occupied vehicle is generally strong evidence of an imminent deadly threat.

While there might be an imminent threat present, is the Truck driver still within his rights to defend himself (and his wife)?

Under general U.S. self-defense law deadly force is justified if:

• You reasonably believe

• You face imminent death or serious bodily harm

• You are not the initial aggressor

This standard was articulated in cases like Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989) which explains that reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable person under the circumstances — not with hindsight.

Now, here's where things get dicey.  See, there are two schools of thought:  Retreat or No Retreat.  

The duty to retreat is a legal rule that says: Before using deadly force in self-defense, a person must retreat if they can do so safely.

Key elements of this Duty to Retreat:

• It only applies to deadly force.

• It only applies if retreat can be done with complete safety.

• It does not require reckless escape.

• It does not apply if you are inside your own home (under traditional castle doctrine).

Historically, this rule was developed in 19th-century American common law.

A well-known articulation appears in Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) in which Justice Holmes wrote: “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”  That case softened strict retreat requirements and emphasized reasonableness.

Currently, the following states adhere to a Duty to Retreat:

• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Maryland (common law)
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Dakota (modified; limited duty)
• Rhode Island
• Vermont (common law duty)
• Wisconsin 

On the other hand are those states that adhere to the Castle Doctrine (or no duty to retreat aka "stand your ground").  

Under Castle Doctrine laws:

• There is typically no duty to retreat.

• An armed unlawful intrusion into an occupied space often creates a legal presumption that the occupant reasonably feared death or serious injury.

For example:

• Utah has statutory provisions allowing deadly force when a person reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury, and it includes occupied vehicles in its habitation protections.

Following are the states that follow the Castle (or stand your ground) doctrine:

• Alabama

• Alaska

• Arizona

• Arkansas

• Florida

• Georgia

• Idaho

• Indiana

• Kansas

• Kentucky

• Louisiana

• Mississippi

• Missouri

• Montana

• Nevada

• New Mexico

• North Carolina

• Ohio

• Oklahoma

• South Carolina

• South Dakota

• Tennessee

• Texas

• Utah

• Virginia

• Washington

• West Virginia

• Wyoming

and, as it turns out, many of these states extend the Castle Doctrine to occupied vehicles.

So, back to our scenario, would shooting be legally justified?

Potentially yes — if the truck driver:

• Reasonably believed the BMW driver was about to shoot,

• Or believed he or his wife were about to be forcibly removed or harmed,

• And the threat was immediate.

A prosecutor in such a case would analyze:

• Was the gun pointed directly?

• Was the Benz driver within shooting distance?

• Was he reaching into the cab?

• Did he attempt to disarm or drag someone out?

• Could the truck driver safely retreat (if duty-to-retreat state)?

• Was deadly force proportional at that moment?

So, the fact that most every question could be answered in the affirmative, I'd think Truck driver is well within his rights to protect himself and his wife. 

HOWEVER, and playing devil's advocate here, what could make a self defense shooting be illegal?

Deadly force could become unlawful if:

• The Benz driver was retreating.

• The gun was not pointed at truck driver or his wife AND threat had ended.

• The truck driver fired after the immediate danger passed.

• The truck driver escalated unnecessarily.

Timing matters enormously. Self-defense hinges on immediacy.

So, the realistic legal outcome of this situation (because every situation has a whole different set of facts), in many jurisdictions, a grand jury would likely consider this a strong self-defense case — especially if:

• The incident was recorded.

• Benz driver clearly brandished the gun.

• Benz driver initiated the confrontation.

• Benz driver physically invaded the truck.

But remember: even clearly justified self-defense shootings are often investigated, and arrest is possible pending review.

So, short answer, under typical U.S. self-defense law:

Yes, the truck driver could legally be justified in using deadly force in this scenario — if he reasonably believed he or his wife were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

The presence of:

• A firearm

• Aggressive approach

• Attempted intrusion into an occupied vehicle

• Demands to exit

…all strongly support that claim.

Bottom line, if you're gonna go all crazy and slam on your breaks and scream obscenities at all other drivers, leave your gun in your car because you never know who else it armed and ready to defend themselves. 

 

Ding Dong!

Picture it.  You've worked all day - exhausted you are - and you're just settling down for the evening when someone rings the doorbell.  You get up to answer the door and no one is there.  

You shut the door and just as you're about to get comfortable the bell rings again and again and again and...no one at the door.

I'm sorry to say but you've been ding door ditched.

Ding Dong Ditching, also known as "doorbell ditching" or "ring and run," is a prank that has been labeled as a rite of passage for many kids growing up. 

The basic premise is simple: ring a neighbor's doorbell and then run away, leaving the homeowner confused or annoyed when they open the door to find no one there. It's often done for the thrill of the chase, the adrenaline rush, or simply to see the homeowner's puzzled reaction.

In most cases, Ding Dong Ditching is considered a minor nuisance rather than a serious criminal offense. However, there may be situations where it can cross the line into illegal territory, such as. 

1. Trespassing: One of the primary legal concerns associated with Ding Dong Ditching is trespassing. If the prankster enters private property without permission, they could potentially be charged with trespassing, a criminal offense in most jurisdictions. However, merely ringing the doorbell and running away from the doorstep may not constitute trespassing, as the prankster typically does not remain on the property.

Real-World Example: In a small suburban community, a group of teenagers decided to engage in Ding Dong Ditching during Halloween. They rang a neighbor's doorbell, but before anyone answered, they dashed off the property and hid nearby. While their actions were undoubtedly a nuisance, they did not enter the property or cause any damage, resulting in no charges of trespassing.

2. Disturbing the Peace: Another legal consideration is whether Ding Dong Ditching can be considered disturbing the peace. If the constant ringing of a doorbell becomes disruptive and significantly disturbs the peace and quiet of a neighborhood, law enforcement may intervene and charge the pranksters.

Real-World Example: In a densely populated urban neighborhood, a group of teenagers repeatedly engaged in Ding Dong Ditching late at night, disturbing residents and causing annoyance. In this case, law enforcement was called, and the teenagers were warned about their behavior. If the disturbances had continued, they might have faced charges related to disturbing the peace.

3. Vandalism and Harassment: If a Ding Dong Ditching prank escalates to vandalism, harassment, or damage to property, the legal consequences can be much more severe. Actions that cause harm, fear, or damage to individuals or their property are taken more seriously by the law.

Real-World Example: A group of teenagers in a suburban neighborhood escalated their Ding Dong Ditching pranks by egging a neighbor's house and causing damage to the front yard. In this case, the prank went beyond a mere nuisance and resulted in criminal charges for vandalism and harassment.

4. Intent Matters: The intent behind Ding Dong Ditching is a crucial factor in determining its legality. If the prank is carried out with malicious intent, such as harassment or intimidation, it is more likely to lead to legal consequences.

Real-World Example: In a rural community, a group of teenagers targeted an elderly neighbor with Ding Dong Ditching pranks, deliberately trying to frighten her. In this situation, the intent to harass the neighbor led to legal action against the teenagers.

Anyway, say the ding dong ditching goes on for days, weeks, months and the pranksters never get caught whereas you get increasingly pissed off and the police don't do anything about it (because it's not their house so why should they care?).

Infuriating, isn't it? 

This is pretty much what happened to Tony Arnold Bernstone, 58, who was arrested back in August 2025.

Seems a group of kids having a sleepover on Friday decided to doorbell-ditch nearby homes, including Bernstone's home.  After the group rang the doorbell, Bernstone allegedly chased after them on a bicycle, eventually grabbing the victim by the shirt and yelling at him, while striking the child three times in the face and punching him in the stomach. Bernstone was consequently arrested for the alleged assault.  

One and done situation?  Yeah, I don't think so.

Back in March 2024 a man who was fed up with people ding-dong-ditching his home was charged with six counts of aggravated assault.  Court documents state 71-year-old Michael Roberts, “walked out of his house onto the porch and began firing a gun (it was a paint-gun) at a car full of teenagers."

Aaaaaaand another homeowner goes to jail.

I mean, it galls me that these kids are allowed to get away with things.  Yeah, I did it when I was a kid but years of retrospect and I'm seeing what a piece of horse manure I was.

Thing is these types of ding dong ditching scenarios happen (and have happened) a whole lot over the years, like:

Maine (July 2024) — Teen Shot in Leg

• A group of teens played “ding‑dong‑ditch” at multiple homes in Harrison, Maine.

• At the fourth house, the homeowner allegedly fired about 14 shots from a 9 mm at the fleeing group, hitting one teen in the leg.

• He was arrested and charged with assault and reckless conduct with a firearm.

Florida (July 2025) — Attempted Vehicular Assault

• In Naples, Florida, children riding scooters rang doorbells during a prank.

• The homeowner allegedly chased them in his car and tried to run them over.

• He was arrested and faces aggravated assault charges.

California (January 2020) — Car-Ramming Murders

• A group of teens played ding‑dong‑ditch in Corona, CA.

• Homeowner Anurag Chandra chased them, ramming their SUV at high speed in 40 mph zone.

• Three teens were killed, and others were injured. Chandra was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder in April 2023.

Virginia (May 3, 2025) — Fatal Shooting During TikTok Prank

• 18‑year‑old Michael Bosworth Jr. and two friends were filming a TikTok ding‑dong‑ditch prank in Spotsylvania County, around 3 AM.

• Homeowner Tyler Chase Butler allegedly believed a burglary was in progress and opened fire.

• Bosworth was fatally shot, another teen was injured; Butler faces second‑degree murder, malicious wounding, and firearm counts.

Dean Taylor Case (San Rafael, CA – 2021)

• Former SFPD officer Dean Taylor alleged pranksters had repeatedly rang his doorbell over multiple nights. On one occasion, he chased them in his vehicle, cornered an 11-year-old boy, grabbed him by the neck, forced him into his car, and threatened to “put a bullet in his head”
  

• Taylor was arrested and charged with kidnapping, making criminal threats, false imprisonment, battery, and child endangerment. The case was pending criminal proceedings at latest reports.

Anurag Chandra Case (Corona, CA – 2020)

• A group of teens played ding‑dong‑ditch near Chandra's home. After one exposed himself and rang the doorbell, Chandra chased their car at speeds up to 99 mph, ramming it off the road. Three 16-year-old boys were killed
  

• Chandra was convicted in April 2023 of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder and subsequently sentenced to life in prison without parole.
  

Other Notable Incidents:

• October 25, 2003 – Boca Raton, FL: A teen was shot in the back by a homeowner after knocking on a door and fleeing.

• June 13, 2011 – Louisville, KY: A 12‑year‑old was shot in the back with a shotgun by Michael Bishop during a doorbell prank. The boy survived, and Bishop was later charged with attempted murder, receiving a later pardon.

• January 1, 2016 – Oklahoma: A 14‑year‑old was shot in the back and arm during a ding‑dong‑ditch prank; he survived.

• May 5, 2018 - A Queen Creek, AZ, Johnathan Larocque assaulted teens after they repeatedly rang his doorbell. Two juveniles were hospitalized—one transported for serious injuries. He was arrested on two counts of aggravated assault

These incidents illustrate a clear claimed pattern reflecting an escalation from repeated nuisance leading to criminal charges against the homeowner: Ring the doorbell run and get attacked — but the court treats the violent act of the homeowner as criminal, not a response excused by mental breakdown.   

While in all of these instances, the homeowner was prosecuted, there are a few cases where the homeowners were justified attacking the prankster:

Exhibit A. Shooting of Ralph Yarl (Missouri, 2023)

• Incident: 16-year-old Ralph Yarl mistakenly rang the doorbell of the wrong house in Kansas City. The homeowner, Andrew Lester, opened fire through the door, believing Yarl was attempting a break-in. Yarl was shot twice but survived.

• Legal Outcome: Lester was charged with first-degree assault and armed criminal action, later pleaded guilty to second-degree assault, after a judge had ordered a mental health evaluation. He died before sentencing.
  

• Legal relevance: The case centered on perceived imminent threat, not actual attack by the teen. Lester claimed fear and confusion, arguing the teen reaching for the door = burglary threat, triggering self-defense instinct.

Exhibit B. Cleveland Heights “Robbery Prank” (Ohio)

• Incident: A group of teens, including a 17-year-old, disguised themselves in ski masks and staged a fake armed robbery on the prankster’s own mother, entering her driveway and demanding money at gunpoint—even though it was "just a prank."
  

• Legal Outcome: The teens were arrested and charged, likely with aggravated robbery, false imprisonment, and assault.

• Legal relevance: The victims (the homeowner/mother) had clear imminent threat, justifying any defensive measures—they were the direct target of the staged attack.

The question that goes through my mind after reading these summaries is why is it that the pranksters, who do the ding dong ditching, are never prosecuted?

There are several reasons why teenagers who do “ding dong ditch” pranks often aren’t prosecuted or face only minimal consequences, even though their actions can be annoying or disruptive, like:

1. Nature of the Offense — Typically Minor or Misdemeanor

• Most “ding dong ditch” pranks fall under minor offenses like trespassing, disturbing the peace, or harassment, often classified as infractions or misdemeanors.

• Law enforcement often prioritizes more serious crimes over these small pranks.  That's "prioritizes" as it didn't happen to them so they don't care.

• In many jurisdictions, first-time or youthful offenders might receive warnings rather than charges.

2. Lack of Clear Harm or Damage

• Often, no property damage or physical injury occurs.

• Courts and prosecutors require evidence of actual harm or significant disturbance to pursue charges.

• Ringing a doorbell and running away is often seen as a juvenile mischief with little lasting damage.

3. Youth and Intent

• Teenagers (especially under 18) are generally treated with more leniency under the juvenile justice system.

• Prosecutors and judges may believe the youth lack criminal intent (mens rea) passing youthful indiscretion.

• The goal is often rehabilitation rather than punishment.

4. Difficulty Identifying or Catching Perpetrators

• Pranksters run away quickly, making identification and apprehension difficult.

• Without clear suspects or eyewitnesses, pressing charges can be challenging.

5. Community and Parental Involvement Preferred

• Law enforcement may prefer to involve parents, schools, or community programs for education and discipline rather than criminal prosecution.

• Diversion programs or juvenile probation may be offered instead.

6. Discretion of Law Enforcement and Prosecutors

• Officers and prosecutors use discretion based on severity, frequency, and context.

• Repeated or escalated pranks that cause harm are more likely to lead to charges.

• Single incidents are often handled informally.

So, say you are the target of a habitual prankster.  What can you do?  What I'd do is:

• Document everything and install cameras to show who is doing what.
• Show that you are experiencing a perceived imminent threat.
• Show that harm is being done to your property.
• File complaints with the police every day/night it happens.
• If the police won't do anything to stop the harassment or the police habitually release the offending pranksters without so much as a slap on the wrist, file a complaint/lawsuit against the police.
• Call your congressman and demand they stop going after Trump and create a bill increase penalties for harassing homeowners to: 
• $500 for a first offense; 
• $2,500 for a second and 200 hours community service for the perps and 24 hours jail for the parents;
• $5,000 for each successive door dinging prank, 500 hours community service, 2 weeks jail time, a cattle prod up the arse, and 2 weeks jail time for the parents!

Well, maybe the cattle prod is a bit much but I'll bet jail time for parents would sure get some traction!

 

Testify!

I don't know if you know, but there are a whole lot of myths about what police can and can't (or shouldn't) do.

Take, for example these 10 (in no particular order) myths about police and their conduct with, around, or towards the general public:

MYTH 1: Police must always read you your Miranda rights when arresting you.
TRUTH: Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) are only required before questioning a suspect in custody.  If you’re arrested but not interrogated, officers don’t have to read you your rights.  Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) clarified that Miranda applies to all custodial interrogations, including traffic stops IF they become custodial. 

MYTH 2: You have to answer all police questions.
TRUTH: You have the right to remain silent. You can (and should) say, “I’m exercising my right to remain silent” and “I want a lawyer.” Under Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013), silence before being read Miranda rights can be used against you unless you explicitly invoke the right to remain silent.  Whereas Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) notes that once a suspect asks for a lawyer, all questioning must stop until counsel is present.

MYTH 3: Police can’t lie to you.
TRUTH: They legally can lie during investigations or interrogations (e.g., “Your friend already confessed”).  However, lying on official reports or under oath is a crime.  Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969) held that police deception during interrogation does not automatically make a confession involuntary.  Additionally, Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) reinforced that voluntary stationhouse questioning, even if deceptive, doesn’t automatically require Miranda warnings.

MYTH 4: If you film the police, they can confiscate your phone or arrest you.
TRUTH: Recording police in public is protected under the First Amendment — as long as you don’t interfere with their duties.  They can’t legally delete, seize, or demand your footage without a warrant (though some still do).  Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) held that recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment and Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) reaffirmed citizens’ right to record police performing public duties.

MYTH 5: Police are legally required to protect you from harm.
TRUTH:  The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times (e.g., DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)) that police have no constitutional duty to protect individuals, only the public at large.  Also, under Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) the court found that even with a restraining order, police are not constitutionally required to enforce protection.

MYTH 6: Police can offer you a deal to avoid charges.
TRUTH: Only prosecutors can make plea deals. Officers might suggest cooperation, but their “promises” aren’t legally binding. Under United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982), the court confirmed that prosecutorial discretion is broad but police cannot promise immunity or deals.

MYTH 7: You can’t sue police officers personally.
TRUTH: You can — but it’s very difficult due to qualified immunity, which protects officers from personal liability unless they violate “clearly established” rights.  Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) Reinforced how broadly courts interpret qualified immunity in police conduct cases.

MYTH 8: Police can use deadly force whenever they feel threatened.
TRUTH:  Deadly force can only be used when a reasonable officer believes there’s an imminent threat of death or serious injury.  Excessive or retaliatory force violates the Fourth Amendment.  Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) clarified the standard for excessive force claims by pretrial detainees and Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) authorized high-speed chase interventions (e.g., PIT maneuvers) when the suspect poses a significant threat to public safety.

MYTH 9: Police can search your car just because they want to.
TRUTH:  They generally need probable cause, your consent, or a warrant.  Examples of probable cause: visible contraband, smell of drugs, or other evidence in plain sight.  According to Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), police cannot enter a home without a warrant to make a routine felony arrest (absent exigent circumstances). Also Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) noted police may enter a home without a warrant to stop ongoing violence or render emergency aid.

MYTH 10: Resisting arrest is legal if the arrest is unlawful.
TRUTH:  Almost all states make resisting arrest illegal, even if the arrest was unjustified. You must challenge it later in court, not during the arrest.  United States v. Ferrone, 438 F.2d 381 (3d Cir. 1971) affirmed that resisting arrest is not justified, even if the arrest is unlawful.

If I may, and while we're on the subject of myths, I'd like to add another myth:  police can lawfully arrest you if you flip them off or swear at them. 

The reality is that courts have repeatedly held that verbally criticizing, cursing, or flipping off police officers is protected by the First Amendment, as long as you’re not making a true threat, inciting violence, or interfering with police duties. 

 

While profanity or rude gestures alone are protected, you could be arrested if your behavior crosses certain lines, such as:

• “Fighting words” – Words likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation (though this standard is rarely met).

• True threats – Saying something like “I’ll kill you” or “I’m going to attack you.”

• Obstruction / Interference – If your yelling physically interferes with police performing their duties.

• Disorderly conduct – If your words are combined with aggressive actions that disturb the peace (not merely causing offense).

Even though it’s illegal, officers sometimes still arrest people anyway, often under vague charges like “disorderly conduct” or “resisting arrest.”  While these charges often get dismissed later, the person still has to deal with handcuffs, court, and lawyer fees.

So, say you flipped a cop the bird and s/he arrested you.  What can you do about it?

If you’re arrested or cited only because you used profanity, insulted, or flipped off a cop, you can typically sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that lets citizens sue government officials (like police officers) for violating constitutional rights.

You would be suing for:

• Violation of your First Amendment rights — retaliation for protected speech; and

• Violation of your Fourth Amendment rights — unlawful or retaliatory arrest without probable cause.

To win a § 1983 case for retaliatory arrest or unlawful arrest, you generally have to show:

1. You engaged in protected speech (swearing or flipping off is protected).

2. The officer took adverse action (e.g., arrest, detention, ticket).

3. The officer’s action was motivated by your speech — that is, they arrested you because of what you said or did.

4. There was no probable cause for the arrest (e.g., “disorderly conduct” was bogus).

So, do people actually win cases against the police if they are wrongfully arrested (particularly for swearing at a cop)?  

Well, if you can prove that the you engaged in protected speech, the officer took adverse action, that the officer's actions were motivated by your speech and there was no probable cause for the arrest, qualified immunity (the doctrine shielding officers in many cases) often won’t apply — because the courts have long made clear that arresting someone for rude but protected speech is unconstitutional.  

Following are several important and successful cases:

• Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F. 2d (9th Cir. 1990); Arizona

  • Duran flipped off and cursed at a police officer.

  • Officer stopped and arrested him for disorderly conduct.

  • Court ruled the officer violated Duran’s rights and denied qualified immunity — the officer could be personally liable.

• Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F. 3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2013); New York

  • Swartz gave a cop the middle finger and was stopped.

  • Court said the gesture was protected, and the officer could be sued for unlawful stop and retaliation.

• Wood v. Eubanks, 459 F. Supp. 3d (6th Cir. 2020); Ohio

  • Man cursed at police and was arrested for disorderly conduct.

  • Court ruled swearing at police is protected speech, the arrest was unlawful, and the officers were not immune from being sued.

• Thurairajah v. City of Fort Smith, 925 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2019); Arkansas

  • A driver yelled “F--- you!” out of his window at a state trooper.

  • The trooper arrested him for disorderly conduct.

  • Court said the arrest violated the First Amendment, and the officer could be personally sued.

So, let's say you sue for being arrested.  What can you get out of it?  Well, IF you win, you can typically get:

• Compensatory damages — for emotional distress, lost wages, or costs of arrest.

• Punitive damages — if the officer acted maliciously or recklessly.

• Attorney’s fees — under § 1988, courts often make the government pay your legal costs.

Examples:

• In some cases, plaintiffs have received $20,000–$75,000 settlements for wrongful arrest or retaliation based solely on swearing or gestures.

• A few received six-figure awards when the arrest was aggressive or caused serious consequences (e.g., job loss, jail time, humiliation).

While this has a "alls well that ends well" warm and fuzzy feel to it, do you really want to go through the hassle of flipping off a cop (as comforting as that may feel, sometimes), THEN getting arrested, THEN filing a lawsuit in federal court only to THEN hope you win and THEN go after the individual cop who arrested you only to discover that said cop doesn't have a pot to piss in?

That's a whole lot of if's and there is no guarantees that you'll win anything other than maybe the inner satisfaction that you were right all along. 

The core bottom line here is that lawsuits against police for merely swearing or making rude gestures tend to be unsuccessful unless accompanied by some deprivation of rights. While police departments risk financial payouts and judicial mandates, the payout is often not worth the hassle of litigation.  

So maybe just keep those phallic symbols gloved and out of sight.