An Ohio man charged with the misdemeanor of "teasing a police dog" offered the bold explanation on the scene that "the dog started it," but at trial tried the more grown-up defense, "I have a constitutional right to tease a dog." Indeed, a 2003 Ohio case, State v. Gilchrist, held that the First Amendment protects dog-teasing speech. But in the present case, State v. Stephens, the judge muzzled the defense by distinguishing the case on its facts:
The Court of Appeals confirmed the trial court's decision that "the enforcement of [O.JR.C.2921.321 in response to 'barking' with ao at a police dog is prohibited where the defendant is at least thirty feet removed from teh aimal and there is no possibililty of any physical contact with the police dog."
The case at hand is different in a key aspect. Unlike Gilchrist, the Defendant was only a few inches from the K-9's snout.
Here's Gilchrist. Here's Stephens. (PDF)
HT: Volokh Conspiracy
