Woman with crude anti-Trump truck decal arrested for fraud

[Julian Englis]

Last edited Fri Nov 17, 2017, 11:20 AM - Edit history (4)

Source: CBS News

The driver of a pickup displaying an expletive-filled message to President Donald Trump and his supporters in the Houston area was arrested Thursday on an outstanding warrant.

Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office records show Karen Fonseca was arrested about 2 p.m. Thursday on an outstanding fraud warrant issued in August by the Rosenberg Police Department. She was in the county jail Thursday night with bond set at $1,500.

Fonseca was released from jail Thursday night after her husband posted her bond, CBS affiliate KHOU reported.

"I'm almost certain it does have to do with (the truck decal)," she said after her release. "People abuse the badge, and in my opinion, money talks. When you're in politics, people know how to work the system."

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-with-expletive-filled-anti-trump-truck-decal-arrested/

---

The sheriff clearly abused his power. I have edited this to try to clarify why the sheriff's acts are an abuse of power. Please read the whole story or you miss the fact the sheriff harassed her prior to her being arrested.

Clearly the sheriff's acts prior to her arrest were harassment and an abuse were an abuse of power by the Sheriff.

The sheriff should not be so ignorant to claim her sticker was illegal. He has a duty to know the law. His ignorance has no excuse.

Further, the sheriff as an official to post the picture and statement on Facebook. That's clearly an abuse of power.

Clearly, this was harassment of an individual by the sheriff for expressing constitutionally protected free speech. This is just like police singling out a person for race, stopping them. Simple as that. The stop serves as an excuse to run a warrant check.

The facts, as reported, clearly point this way. A sheriff can't use his political beliefs as a basis for enforcing laws. He can't say, "I'm going to enforce warrants first on people who are Trump haters." That's exactly what Trump wants done. and it is wrong.

[Codeine]

1. Abuse or an outstanding fraud warrant?

Sometimes a cigar. . .

[EL34x4]

2. If there are warrants out for your arrest, it's wise to keep a low profile.

Even better yet, clear them up. Then you drive around with all the bumper stickers you'd like.

[7962]

3. Exactly. "Abuse of power"? Only if they made up the warrant, which they didn't.

She put herself out there and now is bitching because she got busted for a previous crime.

In Atlanta the other day, a guy who had robbed a bank actually gave an interview with a local news station on the street. They busted him pretty quick!

[Julian Englis]

6. The sheriff abused his powers by claiming the sticker was illegal and then the BS post on Facebook

The sheriff should not be so ignorant to claim her sticker was illegal. He has a duty to know the law. Further, the sheriff as an official to post the picture and statement on Facebook. That's clearly an abuse of power. I will edit my original to this clearer.

We don't know anything about the legitimacy fraud charge from this story and the warrant for arrest. For example don't if the fraud charge was proper or if it was actually filed as harassment against the defendant. We don't if the defendant was ever properly served. Another possibility, given the bias the sheriff has presented, if his department had a duty to serve it, he may have arranged for the defendant not to be served properly. Or service of process could have been screwed up. I have seen this happen before many times in other jurisdictions.

And so on.

[Hortensis]

9. That presentation was guaranteed to alert cop instincts.

And notably they were spot on this time. No surprise.

Municipalities around the nation are preying on their own residents to raise funds to pay their bills. Thousands of serious abuses of power and victimizations of good people are occurring every day, ticketed for parking a car temporarily on a lawn, fake DUIs, forced to run up thousands of bills in expenses for required offender counseling, etc.

This particular person uses her vehicle to deliver hate speech to the community, is an instigator of trouble which came back to slap her, and is guilty of a real crime. Oh, well. I can't be indignant about everything in an imperfect world.

[Julian Englis]

10. A bit of leger de main in what you just posted.

You fail to address any of the key issue: that she was harassed previously for voicing constitutionally protected speech.

Calling her speech hate speech is just wrong. Her speech is constitutional. Your calling it "hate speech" is a mischaracterization of a clearly legal, if vulgar, expression of a political belief. Even the prosecuting attorney agrees the sticker legal. (Also, Trump voters would not qualify as a protected class under most legal theories of hate speech.) Calling it hate speech is basically a Fox News level of mischacterization.

Publicly expressing constitutional ideas, even in a vulgar manner, in no way should bring you to the attention of law enforcement. That is a blatant violation of a persons's constitutional rights. The story points out that the sheriff's were unconstitional:

"It's state action to threaten as (Nehls) did and he really ought to know First Amendment law better than that," Rambo said.

And, clearly, you're wrong in stating at present that she is "guilty of a real crime"--unless you know something the press isn't reporting. There was no report in the press of Ms. Fonseca being guilty any crime.

[Hortensis]

11. Sorry, I don't think calling that hate speech is wrong.

There's no approved list for which groups it's wrong to be bigoted against and to publicly act out intense loathing and for which groups the very same speech is perfectly okay. It's right or wrong for all.

That same behavior would considered inexcusable if blacks or gays or Jews or Muslims were the subject instead, and all the sincere belief in the world that those subjects fully earned the enmity wouldn't excuse it.

[Julian Englis]

18. Hate speech is pretty well defined legal term. You'd do well to understand that.

I suggest you learn the where the term "Hate Speech" comes from. Offensive speech is not the same as hate speech.

Criticizing a someone on the basis race, religion, or sexual orientation is a text book definition of hate speech in the law. Criticism of someone for there political views is constitutionally protected. It's also routinely done here at DU.

Calling someone a criminal who isn't, as you did earlier, is arguably defamation. Defamation is far closer to hate speech than anything the Ms. Fonseca did.

[Hortensis]

20. Like pornography, we know it when I see or hear it.

And this isn't a court of law. Judges have no jurisdiction here.

I can understand if some don't like the reality that when the emotion is hate, so is the speech expressing it. These angry, anxious days, there is, in fact, too much of it right here. Most are just venting on a friendly forum where others understand, but some seem entirely too sincere.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

25. Cite, please.

Seriously. I'm not trying to be snarky.

Is there a definition of hate speech in the U.S. Code?

As far as I know, hate speech, whatever it is, is constitutionally protected.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

By Eugene Volokh May 7, 2015

I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)
....

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and an intensive editing workshop at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.
Follow @volokhc

Full disclosure: I certainly wouldn't drive around with stickers like that on anything I owned. I don't like the idea at all, but it's not my vehicle.

[7962]

12. Here's an abuse of power that stands head & shoulders above most:

http://www.11alive.com/article/news/investigations/the-drug-whisperer-drivers-arrested-while-stone-cold-sober/85-437061710

Check this out. I've NEVER seen such bullshit before. I doubt it will last before lawsuits pour in.

[Hortensis]

14. Happens all the time in jurisdictions where lost tax

dollars are made up by preying on citizens. Like all corruption, it builds on itself. This has created additional government jobs and ancillary industries, like bail bond issuers, probation officers and alcohol cessation "counselors," whose profits, salaries, and taxes and and kickbacks paid to the local government, depend on a growing supply of victims.

We have someone who was innocently charged with a DUI in our family (she was the designated driver, her passenger under the influence). In spite of a decent case against the police, and NO case against our relative, plus an unusually good attorney with good connections in the county (not your pathetic DUi slugs we saw at the courthouse who apparently couldn't afford a new Sears suit), copping to a lesser plea was considered wise and fighting it dangerous. It cost over $8000 to mostly put it in the past, and that was paid on time with no whopping fines and interest applied.

[Julian Englis]

19. This is not only harassment but it's stupid.

If they want to ticket someone for erratic driving fine. But to charge someone with a crime based only on a subjective opinion of someone with minimal training appears to be an abuse of power.

[TNNurse]

4. I do not share FB posts with the F word in them.

I do not like to see the word on cars, trucks, billboards or signs.
I say that word but never at work or in public or in places that children might hear.

I know kids hear that word a lot. I just do not want to be the source.

My mother would not have been happy if I did this. She never heard me say it.

[Julian Englis]

8. That's your choice. But you can't legally stop others from doing so if you're a sheriff.

You may or may not like vulgar language. But you have no right to bully someone who uses it to express a political sentiment if you are a sheriff.

[xor]

5. Are you suggesting the police should have overlooked her warrant, or that they

made her commit fraud to have the warrant issued against her? I'm curious how you think the police should have handled this differently.

[Julian Englis]

7. Have you read how the whole story & how the Sheriff illegally harassed her prior to the arrest?

The facts suggest Ms. Fonseca was only arrested after the sheriff became aware of her political opinion. That would be illegal. You can't have your enforcement of warrants based on the defendants political beliefs--even though that is what Trump advocates and Nixon did.

[califootman]

13. Targeting?

An earlier article I read mentioned that the FB post had been taken down because, according to the sheriff, they had gotten what they wanted from it... the name of the vehicle owner.

Once they have that, they do a look through their databases and bam... outstanding warrant for fraud. The question then becomes, would they have acted on that warrant if the whole truck sticker incident had not brought it to their attention.

[onenote]

15. So does the earlier harassment immunize her from ever having the outstanding warrant enforced?

[califootman]

21. It certainly doesn't.

But perhaps that warrant had been on the books for a long period of time with no action. If so, and then suddenly was acted on after she was identified due to the eff Trump sticker on her truck, that seems retaliatory.

[onenote]

22. The warrant was from August.

[Cold War Spook]

24. Every time I am stopped

they run me. Most cops do it at almost if not every stop they make. Only once did a cop find something. When he gave me back my license, he told me my carry license was at the sheriff's office. I am White and have a disabled veteran plate.

[X_Digger]

16. If you come to the attention of law enforcement with an active warrant, you're an idiot.

Free speech doesn't mean that law enforcement has to ignore you.

[MosheFeingold]

17. The fraud charge appears pre-existing

She should have kept her head down.

As to the legality of the sign, it was legal. But it was dancing on the edge of provocation, in that it didn't say "F--- Trump and his voters," it say "F--- YOU" for ......

Very close (but not quite) fighting words.

If she ended up in an altercation because of it, either the person started it would have a semi-valid defense or she might be in trouble for breaching the peace. The DA gave a pretty good summary of this and the cop did a cop-like summary of this (and yes, I was a cop before I was a lawyer).

That said, telling people "F--- You" is not constructive, even if it makes one feel better. Insults are not a valid means of persuasion, so the sign was pretty stupid.

[Yupster]

23. I'm assuming it's a legal sign

First amendment and all, but come on people.

Have some common courtesy.

Someone with kids in their car shouldn't have to see an FU sign just because they're stopped at a red light.

[Turbineguy]

26. Fraud?

Is there a cabinet post in the offing?

How does that work in the Trump admin? Is one more qualified if one is arrested for fraud or if one hasn't been arrested. It seems that an arrest would suggest more qualified. After all, anyone can claim to have committed fraud in order to get a job.