Fake bomb defendant cites 1st Amendment

[TJ Phaserman 2]

BOSTON - A computer science student who unwittingly created an airport bomb scare by wearing a blinking circuit board attached to her shirt had a First Amendment right to express herself in that manner, her lawyer argued Friday.

 

Attorney Thomas Dwyer Jr. asked a judge to throw out the charge against Star Simpson, 19, who is accused of possessing a hoax device. East Boston District Court Judge Paul Mahoney took the motion to dismiss under advisement and said he would issue a ruling March 21.

 

Simpson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology student from Lahaina, Hawaii, had gone to Logan International Airport last September to pick up her boyfriend.

 

She was held at gunpoint and arrested by state troopers after an alarm was raised over the battery-powered device on her shirt, which had flashing lights and the words "Socket to me" and "Course VI" (a major at MIT) written on the back.

 

Dwyer said his client, who is studying electrical engineering and computer science, didn't think her shirt would scare anyone. He said she had worn it on campus without alarming anyone.

 

"People make these objects part of their identity. It's a part of their personal expression," he said. "They are legitimate forms of First Amendment expression."

 

Dwyer also argued that state law does not clearly define what a hoax device is. The charge carries a penalty of up to 2 1/2 years and a $5,000 fine.

 

Assistant District Attorney Stephen Kerr said that police officers who arrested Simpson determined that a reasonable person would think Simpson was wearing an infernal device, which includes bombs and other explosives.

 

The terminal was not evacuated and flights were not affected. But authorities expressed amazement that someone would wear the device to the airport where two of the jets hijacked in the Sept. 11 attacks took off.

 

Her lawyer said she disconnected the battery to the flashing lights after somebody at the airport told her she shouldn't be wearing something like that.

 

Simpson, dressed in a long skirt and short-sleeved shirt, did not say anything during the court hearing.

 

Boston had been the focus of another bizarre security scare earlier last year when dozens of battery-powered devices were discovered around the city. They turned out to be a promotion for the Cartoon Network. Prosecutors dropped charges against two men after they apologized and performed community service.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

"clear and present danger" anyone?

[Wishfire 2]

Um... sure. "Beware teh LEDz!"

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

Honestly though, who wears a shirt that lights up, other than on Halloween or at the company Christmas party? If not the police arresting her, she should have been arrested by the fashion police!

[Wishfire 2]

It's Boston we're talking about...

 

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

lol. I gotta admit, I still want one of those ATHF light up things, too. A house is just not a home without a luminescent Ignignot!

[Wishfire 2]

Just make sure you don't get yourself a Hand Banana.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

I once had one of those...

 

*flourish of smoke*

 

Thousands of years ago in the future!!

[trekz 7]

On the other hand, maybe she heard someone say "Lighten up, people!" and took it literally. :P

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

It's Boston we're talking about...

 

 

:P

 

OK, I have to admit it was a stupid shirt to wear on a flight, but being stupid is hardly a crime. I think the 1st Amendment does protect her as she didn't intend on hoaxing anyone. This hardly reaches yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire proportions.

 

What I don't get is why it is state law they are looking at to determine what a fake bomb is. I would think this would be federal law.

 

What I really don't get is why it will take the judge over a month and a half to rule on the dismissal. To me the lack of mens ra (criminal intent) is prima facie (obvious on the surface). Even if not, it shouldn't take that long to make a decision.

 

Doesn't the Adult Swim character look like it is flipping people off?

Edited February 2, 2008 by Lt. Van Roy

[Theunicornhunter 2]

She was arrested by state police and charged with a state crime - so state law (including definitions) applies.

 

Did the article mention she was wearing this device over a headed sweatshirt and had playdough in her hands?

 

And since intent is an element of the crime - whether or not there was intent is a matter for trial. The fact that she says she didn't mean to cause alarm may or may not be true. I'm thinking its possible - also based on how she acted at the arrest - that she wanted to create a public scene.

 

My question - If she really was just stupid - is how did she get into MIT?

 

The judge probably has a lot of reading to do before making that decision - and who knows how many other decisions he also has to make - in addition to being in court. Decisions like this are not made without much work - because of the precedent it will set.

[Wishfire 2]

:P

 

OK, I have to admit it was a stupid shirt to wear on a flight, but being stupid is hardly a crime.

 

I thought she was just there to pick up a friend, or something like that.

 

I think the 1st Amendment does protect her as she didn't intend on hoaxing anyone. This hardly reaches yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire proportions.

 

Agreed,

 

What I don't get is why it is state law they are looking at to determine what a fake bomb is. I would think this would be federal law.

 

Probably because they realized that a federal court would throw the case out with the quickness.

 

What I really don't get is why it will take the judge over a month and a half to rule on the dismissal. To me the lack of mens ra (criminal intent) is prima facie (obvious on the surface). Even if not, it shouldn't take that long to make a decision.

 

I don't know... This is one of those WTF cases.

 

Doesn't the Adult Swim character look like it is flipping people off?

 

It is.