ILNews

ACLU sues 2 Indy police officers over car sticker

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana woman intended her bumper sticker reading "unmarked police car" as a joke, but two police officers didn't think it was funny. Now, they're being sued in federal court for allegedly violating the woman's free speech rights, and officials aren't laughing.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit last week on behalf of 56-year-old Pamela Konchinsky of Franklin. The complaint says Konchinsky was followed by two squad cars when she pulled into a parking garage near the mall where she works in downtown Indianapolis. The first car had its lights flashing. Konchinsky knew she hadn't violated any traffic laws.

The officers told her to remain in her minivan after asking for her license and registration, and then scolded her for the sticker taped in the rear window of her minivan.

One of the officers warned her during the June 17 incident that someone would think she was impersonating a police officer, and that someone might shoot at her, believing her to be an officer.

The bumper stickers proclaiming "unmarked police car" sell for $2.50 online. Konchinsky, the mother of one adult and one school-age child, works three jobs. She had received the sticker as a gift from a friend and taped it to the inside of her minivan's rear window about seven months ago.

"It's a joke — it's ironic," Kelly Eskew, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, told The Indianapolis Star. "It's like you or I wearing a T-shirt that says, 'Undercover cop.'"

But the officers took the issue seriously, and didn't allow Konchinsky to leave until she had removed the sticker from the window.

She didn't receive a citation, but the fuss made her late for work and her pay was docked as a result.

The lawsuit filed late last week claims the officers violated Konchinsky's First Amendment right to freedom of speech and her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Indianapolis corporation counsel Samantha DeWester said her office doesn't comment on pending litigation, but she did tell the Star that "We take every lawsuit against the city extremely seriously."

Indianapolis police spokesman Officer Chris Wilburn said police don't comment on pending litigation, either.

The complaint seeks to recover Konchinsky's lost wages and other costs, including legal fees.

"Ms. Konchinsky has not put the bumper sticker back on the minivan but wishes to do so as a humorous and ironic expression," the complaint reads.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • OK, Jose...
    Because a mini van with a bumper sticker taped to the inside rear window is a real threat to the community. I can see you saying that she would turn her van around and go in reverse really fast to catch up with perpetrators and instead of turning on her cherry's or wig wags, she'd instead point to the bumper sticker. Right?
  • inconsequential
    Maybe a bigger joke is how the ACLU picks its cases. Other than cases preventing Christians from exercising their religion, they mostly are about whining over trifling matters like this. Really, I don't disagree with the legal position, and will admit perhaps the cops erred, but ouch what a reply. Like hitting a fly with a sledgehammer. She didn't even get a ticket! Wow. Great topic for a lawsuit. NOT. ACLU has become a caricature of itself.
  • Cops
    I am with the Cops on this one. They could have been more subtle about the approach; but she (IMO) should not be able to have sign indicating she is police when she is not. just my opinion.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT