Tenth Circuit Finds Oklahoma Riot Statute Requires Proof of Intent to Threaten

OKLAHOMA CITY – This week, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the Oklahoma Riot Statute’s definition of a “riot” is neither vague nor overbroad in violation of the United States Constitution, due in large part to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ recognition of an intent element of “willfulness”.

In May of 2020, a horrifying 10-minute-long eyewitness video of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police sparked the largest protests in U.S. history. And in Oklahoma, communities throughout the state demanded police reform and racial equity. During protests, advocates faced many efforts by the City of Oklahoma City and Oklahoma County to chill their free speech. One such effort included charging protesters with Incitement to Riot, relying on the broad definition of “riot” in Oklahoma statute to criminalize racial justice protesters criticizing the police.

The ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation and Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic challenged the constitutionality of the Riot Statute, arguing that it violated Oklahomans’ free speech and due process rights because it lacked an intent requirement. Without the requirement that the speaker intended to threaten violence, the statute criminalized speech protected by the First Amendment, like the protest speech of Oklahomans standing up against police brutality. With this week’s decision in Terry, et al. v. Dummond, et al., the Tenth Circuit found that the threats provision of the Riot Statute requires the State to prove that a person intended to threaten violence.

The following is a joint statement by ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation and Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic:

“The murder of George Floyd by police ignited nation-wide protests and renewed demands for racial justice and law enforcement accountability. We see the same demands made today, as law enforcement attempts to silence and criminalize protesters demanding accountability for our immigrant communities. This ruling helps protect the safety of Oklahomans as they take to the streets to demand better from our government, as the State may no longer leverage the Riot Statute against speakers with whom it disagrees. The threats provision of “riot” now requires the State to prove that a person intended to threaten violence, an even higher standard than required by the First Amendment. The right to protest is fundamental to our democracy and enshrined in the Constitution. The ACLU of Oklahoma and our partners will continue to fight against any attempts to violate the First Amendment rights of all people. Dissent is patriotic.”