- Free Consultation: (813) 222-2220 Tap Here to Call Us
Florida Free Speech Win: What Lawful Assembly Means for Your Rights
When Lawful Assembly and Free Speech Meets Public Order
In a nation founded on the principles of free expression and the right to petition the government, the interplay between individual liberties and the need for public order is a constant legal frontier. This delicate balance often comes into sharp focus during public meetings, where citizens exercise their right to voice concerns and engage with elected officials. A recent decision from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, Rodney Keith Jones v. State of Florida, shines a critical light on these fundamental rights, particularly concerning charges of disturbing a lawful assembly and resisting arrest.
This significant appellate ruling, issued on July 18, 2025, reverses convictions for disturbing a lawful assembly and resisting an officer without violence, underscoring the high bar the state must meet when limiting speech in public forums. However, it also affirms a conviction for threatening a law enforcement officer, illustrating that while free speech is robust, it is not without its boundaries. For anyone navigating the complexities of criminal charges in Florida, understanding the nuances of such appellate decisions is paramount. At the Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr. , we are committed to upholding the rights of our clients and providing diligent, informed legal defense. My practice is dedicated to helping individuals understand their legal standing and ensuring their voices are heard within the justice system.
Do you have questions about your rights at public meetings, or are you facing criminal charges in Florida? Navigating the legal system can be daunting. Don’t face it alone. The experienced team at Central Law is here to provide the legal guidance and representation you need. Visit our website today at centrallaw.com or call us directly at 813-222-2220 for a confidential consultation.
The Events Unfold: A Day at the Bradenton City Council
The case of Rodney Keith Jones began, as many do, with a seemingly ordinary public interaction that spiraled into legal trouble. The events in question took place during a Bradenton City Council meeting. Mr. Jones, like other citizens, had been allowed to speak for his allotted time during the public comment portion of the meeting. However, after the council moved to the consent agenda—a section of the meeting where public comments are typically not permitted—Mr. Jones attempted to interject.
The court record details that a member of the audience replied to a councilmember, prompting the mayor to announce that no further comments from the audience would be allowed. Despite this, Mr. Jones raised his hand and asked, “can I ask you a question, please.” The mayor responded, “Please, you’re out of order Mr. Jones.” Mr. Jones retorted, “No, you’re out of order because I asked for help and I’m not getting it.”
At this point, the mayor suggested Mr. Jones speak with Police Chief Melanie Bevan at the back of the room. Mr. Jones stood, turned towards the back, but then sat back down. Captain Phillip Waller and another officer approached him. Captain Waller sat behind Mr. Jones, and the two engaged in a quiet conversation for approximately three minutes, which could not be heard on the meeting’s video recording.
Captain Waller later testified that he was trying to “de-escalate” the situation. He noted Mr. Jones became angrier as the conversation progressed and stated that Mr. Jones refused to leave or comply with the rules, explicitly saying he “would not be quiet.” Based on this, Captain Waller decided to arrest Mr. Jones, aiming to avoid a scene in the meeting. When Mr. Jones did not stand to leave, officers attempted to pick him up, eventually putting him on the floor and carrying him out.
Crucially, Captain Waller admitted under cross-examination that during their quiet conversation, Mr. Jones, though angry, was neither disrespectful nor loud. He also stated his belief that he had probable cause to arrest Mr. Jones for disturbing a lawful assembly based solely on Mr. Jones’s brief exchange with the mayor—an exchange that lasted less than ten seconds. Waller acknowledged that others had spoken for longer periods without being arrested and justified the arrest by stating he “didn’t want to just sit back and wait for it to happen again.”
The meeting’s video further revealed that after Captain Waller and Chief Bevan spoke with Mr. Jones, the mayor called a recess. When the video resumed, officers were actively trying to remove a seated Mr. Jones. Bill Sanders, a former Bradenton City Council member sitting two rows behind Mr. Jones, testified that Mr. Jones was not raising his voice or creating a disturbance. He also stated that police had targeted Mr. Jones in the past for speaking out and that no one else had ever been arrested at a council meeting. According to Sanders, the disruption that led to the recess was caused by the officers, who were being loud during the arrest.
Following the meeting, police monitored Mr. Jones’s Facebook page, where he posted videos. In one such video, Mr. Jones made graphic statements about physically harming Chief Bevan, stating, “I mean that shit.” This online statement became the basis for the third charge: threatening a law enforcement officer.
Case Summary: The Charges and Lawful Assembly Outcomes for Rodney Keith Jones
To better understand the appellate court’s decision, here is a breakdown of the charges Mr. Jones faced and how the convictions were handled at both the trial and appellate levels:
| Charge | Trial Court Verdict | Appellate Court Decision | Key Reason for Appellate Decision | Relevant Florida Statute |
| Disturbing a Lawful Assembly | Convicted (Time Served) | Reversed | Lack of “significant disturbance” and probable cause for arrest; First Amendment protections. | § 871.01(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023) |
| Resisting an Officer Without Violence | Convicted (Time Served) | Reversed | Underlying arrest for disturbing a lawful assembly lacked probable cause, making the resistance lawful. | § 843.02, Fla. Stat. (2023) |
| Threatening a Law Enforcement Officer | Convicted (11 months, 29 days jail) | Affirmed | Comments on Facebook video constituted “willful and knowing threats” and were not protected hyperbole. | § 836.12(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023) |
Disturbing Lawful Assembly: A Deep Dive into First Amendment Rights
The first and arguably most critical aspect of the appeal concerned Mr. Jones’s conviction for disturbing a lawful assembly, charged under Section 871.01(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2023). This statute makes it unlawful to “willfully and maliciously interrupt or disturb any assembly of people who have met for any lawful purpose.” Mr. Jones argued that any disturbance was not substantial, he lacked intent to disrupt, and the officers, in fact, caused the disruption. The appellate court agreed with Mr. Jones, reversing this conviction.
At the heart of this analysis lies the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which broadly protects freedom of speech and the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amend. I, U.S. Const. The Florida Constitution offers similar protection, stating, “No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech.” Art. I, § 4, Fla. Const. These protections are not absolute, particularly in specific settings. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the government is not required to grant unrestricted access to all who wish to speak, especially when it might lead to “disruption that might be caused by the speaker’s activities.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 799-800 (1985). However, this does not grant a license to evade the First Amendment, which requires a “close look” when speech is restricted. McDonough v. Garcia, 116 F.4th 1319, 1322 (11th Cir. 2024).
City council meetings are generally classified as “limited public forums.” McDonough, 116 F.4th at 1328. In such forums, government restrictions on speech must not discriminate based on viewpoint and “must be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.” Id. at 1329 (quoting Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 106-07 (2001)). In Mr. Jones’s case, the court found that the Bradenton City Council’s policy of prohibiting public comment during the consent agenda was reasonable and did not offend his First Amendment rights, as it was designed to allow the council to conduct city business efficiently.
However, the question then became whether Mr. Jones’s specific actions violated the disturbing a lawful assembly statute. The Florida Supreme Court, in S.H.B. v. State, 355 So. 2d 1176, 1178 (Fla. 1977), established clear elements for this offense:
- Deliberate Action: The person must have deliberately acted to create a disturbance, intending for their behavior to impede the assembly’s functioning, or with reckless disregard for its effect.
- Reasonable Expectation of Disruption: The acts complained of must be such that a reasonable person would expect them to be disruptive.
- Significant Disturbance: The acts must, in fact, significantly disturb the assembly.
The S.H.B. court emphasized that these elements prevent “an innocent party genuinely exercising his civil rights from being penalized.” Id. The Second District Court of Appeal meticulously applied these standards to Mr. Jones’s case.
The court found that Mr. Jones’s initial statements—”can I ask you a question, please” and “No, you’re out of order because I asked for help and I’m not getting it”—were brief and did not significantly disturb the assembly.5 Indeed, the City Council proceeded with the consent agenda afterward. The court compared Mr. Jones’s actions to those in Weidner v. State, 380 So. 2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 1980), where the Florida Supreme Court granted a judgment of acquittal to a defendant who stepped forward with a tape recorder, asked a councilman to repeat a comment, and pushed some chairs. Mr. Jones’s brief comments were significantly less disruptive.
Crucially, the court noted that the interaction between Mr. Jones and the officers was quiet; Mr. Sanders testified they were whispering, and their conversation was inaudible on the meeting video. The meeting continued uninterrupted during this discussion. Captain Waller’s testimony, acknowledging he decided to arrest Mr. Jones based on speculation about what Mr. Jones “might later do or say to disrupt the meeting,” proved critical. The court concluded that the actual interruption to the meeting occurred when Chief Bevan and Captain Waller spoke to Mr. Jones, and subsequently, when officers physically removed him from the room.
The appellate court held that “absent evidence that Mr. Jones deliberately acted to significantly disturb the meeting, the officers’ arrest of Mr. Jones for disturbing a lawful assembly lacked probable cause.” K.W. v. State, 328 So. 3d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), clarifies that law enforcement must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed before making an arrest. The mere “speculation that Mr. Jones might speak out-of-order or become argumentative if he were not removed from the meeting did not provide probable cause for his arrest.” Therefore, the conviction for disturbing a lawful assembly was reversed due to a lack of competent substantial evidence.
Resisting an Officer Without Violence: The Ripple Effect
The reversal of the disturbing a lawful assembly conviction had a direct and immediate impact on Mr. Jones’s second charge: resisting an officer without violence. Section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2023), defines this misdemeanor as resisting, obstructing, or opposing an officer “in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer.”
A cornerstone of Florida law regarding resisting arrest is the principle that if the officer is not acting in the “lawful execution of any legal duty”—meaning the underlying arrest or detention lacks probable cause or legal authority—then your nonviolent effort to oppose or avoid that detention is generally not unlawful under Section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2023). As the Second District Court of Appeal has held, “the legality of the arrest is an element of the offense of resisting arrest without violence.” State v. Espinosa, 686 So. 2d 1345, 1347 (Fla. 1996); see also Dydek v. State, 349 So. 3d 521, 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
Given the appellate court’s determination that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Jones for disturbing a lawful assembly, it logically followed that his subsequent resistance, even if nonviolent, could not form the basis of a lawful charge. Because the underlying arrest for disturbing a lawful assembly was improper, the officers were not acting in the lawful execution of a legal duty when they attempted to remove Mr. Jones. Consequently, his conviction for resisting an officer without violence was also reversed.
Facing criminal charges or believe your rights have been violated? The legal system can be complex and intimidating, especially when dealing with charges that involve First Amendment issues. Don’t go through this alone. Reach out today. We offer experienced representation and a commitment to protecting your future. Call us at 813-222-2220 or visit centrallaw.com/contact-us/ to schedule your consultation. Your rights deserve a strong defense.
Threatening a Law Enforcement Officer: Where Speech Crosses the Line
While the Rodney Keith Jones decision offered a victory for First Amendment principles in the context of public assembly, it also delivered a stern reminder that the protection of free speech is not absolute. The appellate court affirmed Mr. Jones’s conviction for threatening a law enforcement officer, Chief Bevan.
This charge fell under Section 836.12(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2023), which prohibits willfully and knowingly threatening a law enforcement officer with death or serious bodily harm. Mr. Jones had argued that his comments on his Facebook videos were not “actual threats” but rather “hyperbole” or metaphorical speech.
The challenge for courts in these situations is to distinguish between constitutionally protected, albeit sometimes crude or offensive, speech and a “true threat” that can be lawfully prohibited. Courts must examine the “totality of the circumstances” to make this determination. Smith v. State, 532 So. 2d 50, 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). A “true threat” communicates a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. It is not political hyperbole, idle talk, or jest.
In Mr. Jones’s case, the State presented evidence of his Facebook video comments, which graphically described how he intended to physically harm Chief Bevan, followed by his statement, “I mean that shit.” The appellate court, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the State—as is required when reviewing a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal—concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Mr. Jones’s motion for judgment of acquittal on this charge. The court found that these comments, despite Mr. Jones’s assertion of metaphor, constituted “willful and knowing threats to a law enforcement officer.”
This portion of the ruling highlights a critical boundary of free speech. While citizens are robustly protected in their right to criticize public officials and engage in heated debate, this protection does not extend to credible threats of violence. When speech crosses the line into explicit and intentional threats of harm, it loses its constitutional shield and can lead to criminal liability.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Free Speech and Public Meetings
Understanding your rights and obligations in public forums can be complex. Here are answers to some common questions based on the principles highlighted in the Rodney Keith Jones case:
While you have broad First Amendment rights to free speech, these rights are not unlimited, especially in a “limited public forum” like a city council meeting. Meetings can have reasonable rules about when and how you can speak (e.g., during a public comment period, for an allotted time). However, restrictions cannot be based on the viewpoint of your speech, and they must be reasonable to allow the government to conduct its business.
As demonstrated in the Jones case, simply being outspoken or briefly interjecting out of turn might not be enough. For an act to be considered disturbing a lawful assembly under Florida Statute § 871.01(1)(a), it must:
* Be a deliberate act intended to impede the assembly or done with reckless disregard.
* Be reasonably expected to be disruptive.
* Actually significantly disturb the assembly.
Minor disruptions, or those caused by law enforcement actions rather than the individual’s intent, may not meet this high legal bar.
In Florida, if an officer is not acting in the “lawful execution of any legal duty”—meaning the underlying arrest or detention lacks probable cause or legal authority—then your nonviolent effort to oppose or avoid that detention is generally not unlawful under Section 843.02, Florida Statutes (2023). However, it’s crucial to understand that using violence to resist an unlawful arrest is never legally permissible. Determining the legality of an arrest can be complex and is best left to a court. The safest course of action is to comply and address the legality of the arrest later with legal counsel.
Courts look at the “totality of the circumstances” to differentiate between exaggerated speech (hyperbole) and a “true threat.” A true threat communicates a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a specific person or group. Factors considered include the context, the speaker’s intent, and whether a reasonable person would perceive the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm. Comments that are clearly jokes, political rhetoric, or expressions of frustration are typically protected, but direct, credible threats of violence are not.
Yes. As the Rodney Keith Jones case demonstrates, and as explicitly covered under Florida Statute § 836.12(2)(a)
(and related statutes like § 836.10 for written/electronic threats), comments made on social media platforms can absolutely constitute “willful and knowing threats” if they meet the legal definition of a true threat. Even if you claim your Facebook statements were metaphorical or hyperbole, the court will assess them based on whether a reasonable person would perceive them as a serious expression of intent to commit harm, considering the totality of the circumstances. Explicit, graphic descriptions of harm, especially when followed by statements indicating seriousness (like “I mean that shit” in the Jones case), are likely to be viewed as true threats.
The Significance of Rodney Keith Jones: Protecting Rights and Upholding Justice
The Rodney Keith Jones v. State of Florida decision is a vital reminder of the delicate balance between individual liberties and governmental authority. For citizens, it reinforces the robust protection of their First Amendment rights, particularly in the context of public forums like city council meetings. It clarifies that a minor, brief disruption, or even a perceived potential for future disruption, is insufficient grounds for arrest for disturbing a lawful assembly. It underscores that the cause of the disturbance matters, and officers’ actions can themselves create the very disturbance they seek to prevent.
For law enforcement, the ruling serves as a crucial clarification on the standards for probable cause, particularly concerning charges that touch upon free speech. It reiterates that arrests must be based on actual, observable criminal conduct that meets the statutory definition, not on speculation or a desire to prevent future, unproven actions. When an arrest lacks probable cause, any subsequent charges of resisting without violence are likely to fail, impacting how officers approach situations involving citizen interactions at public gatherings.
Finally, the affirmation of the threatening a law enforcement officer conviction reinforces that while free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy, it is not limitless. Credible threats of violence, regardless of their medium, cross a line that the First Amendment does not protect. This distinction is vital for maintaining public safety while preserving the core values of open dialogue and government accountability.
Protecting Your Rights Starts Here
Understanding these legal precedents is crucial for every Floridian. The Rodney Keith Jones case demonstrates that even in seemingly straightforward interactions, complex constitutional issues can arise, potentially leading to charges that may not withstand appellate scrutiny. If you find yourself facing criminal charges, particularly those involving public conduct, free speech, or interactions with law enforcement, it is imperative to have knowledgeable and experienced legal representation on your side.
At CentralLaw, we are dedicated to protecting your rights and ensuring you receive a fair defense. We understand the intricacies of Florida law and are prepared to advocate vigorously on your behalf. Don’t navigate the legal system alone.
Visit us at centrallaw.com to learn more about our services and how we can assist you. You can learn more about my background and approach to law on my bio page: https://www.centrallaw.com/lawyers/w-f-casey-ebsary-jr/. For direct inquiries or to schedule a confidential consultation, please reach out through our contact page: https://www.centrallaw.com/contact-us/ or call us directly at 813-222-2220. Your rights are worth fighting for.