CITY OF KALISPELL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SEAN MICHAEL DOMAN, Defendant and Appellant

CITY OF KALISPELL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SEAN MICHAEL DOMAN, Defendant and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for Wednesday, October 1, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, in Helena. Video In July 2022, Doman was riding his bicycle in Kalispell when he came upon a traffic stop in progress. He stopped on the sidewalk and began to record the traffic stop with his cellphone. The officer conducting the stop requested backup because of Doman’s presence. Another officer arrived at the scene and ordered Doman to move away from the stopped vehicle. Doman moved, but the officer directed him to move further, and Doman protested. The officer then took Doman’s phone and put it on the ground. Doman picked up his phone and advised the officer he would “sue the fuck out of [him].” The officer directed Doman to “keep moving.” Doman and the officer argued over whether Doman was sufficiently distant from the traffic stop. Doman called the officer a “tyrant” and the officer then placed Doman under arrest for obstructing a peace officer. Doman moved to dismiss the charge, arguing there was no evidence that he knowingly hindered the traffic stop. The Municipal Court denied the motion and the District Court affirmed the denial. Doman was later convicted after a jury trial. On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, Doman argues that his recording did not interfere with the traffic stop, he never refused to comply with the officer’s orders, and calling the officer a “tyrant” was protected speech under the First Amendment and could not be used as a basis for arrest and criminal charges. Doman further argues that the law prohibiting obstruction of a peace officer is unconstitutional as applied to him because he was acting within his First Amendment right to record the traffic stop in a public space and he never used or threatened to use violence or force against the officers. The State argues that Doman did not preserve the constitutional arguments for appeal and that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of obstructing.

No filings indexed yet.