HARTFORD, Conn. — A Bridgeport man's profanity-laced tirade against probation officers in 2004 was inflammatory enough to be considered a threat, the state's appeals court ruled yesterday.
The decision to uphold Gregory Gaymon's breach-of-peace conviction is one of several recent rulings that delineates three areas — free speech, what the courts call "fighting words" and criminal threats.
The state Appellate Court ruled yesterday in State of Connecticut v. Gaymon that Gaymon's actions fell into the third category.
He was being arrested by five probation officers on a probation violation on March 11, 2004, and was handcuffed when he threatened and cursed one of them and spit at him. Gaymon was charged with breach of peace, convicted and sentenced to six months in prison.
His attorneys argued that the language was not extreme enough to justify an arrest under Connecticut law. They cited a state Supreme Court ruling that "fighting words" that would justify a reaction from an ordinary citizen may not be offensive enough to justify action by police.
But the Connecticut high court also has ruled that threats against police officers are not protected speech.
The Appellate Court did not decide yesterday whether a probation officer should be treated as a police officer in such cases, but found Gaymon's words alone were properly viewed as a threat.
"Because we have determined that the defendant's statements ... constituted true threats, the court's failure to instruct the jury as to fighting words did not affect the fairness of the trial," wrote Judge Joseph H. Pellegrino.
Gaymon's attorney, Charles F. Willson, said he planned to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
"We hold to our position that a probation officer, because he was engaging in police activity, should have been treated as a police officer in describing his role to a jury," Willson said.
Willson said he also plans to argue, as he did to the appeals court, that it was not reasonable for the probation officer to feel threatened by a man in handcuffs.
"He was restricted," Willson said. "There was not a reasonable expectation that he would engage in an act of violence."
Senior Assistant State's Attorney Robert Brennan, who argued the state's case, said he had not reviewed the ruling and would not comment on it.