Nude Iowa woman arrested after stealing American flags, burning them: Police
A southern Iowa woman is facing charges after authorities say she took her clothes off, stole American flags and set them on fire this month.
Brianna Laird, 21, is facing charges after a caller said she burned stolen American flags on June 16, per court documents obtained by USA TODAY.
While burning American flags is protected under the First Amendment, Laird was charged with third-degree arson, assault on an officer, indecent exposure, interference with official acts, fifth-degree criminal mischief, possession of drug paraphernalia and fifth-degree theft, per online court records.
A lawyer for Laird did not immediately respond to requests for comment on June 20.
Court documents: Woman hit and kicked officer while resisting arrest
On June 16, someone called dispatchers about a woman in Bussey, Iowa, about 60 miles southeast of Des Moines. The caller said a nude woman was 'lighting American flags on fire,' according to court documents obtained by USA TODAY.
When Marion County deputies arrived, they allegedly found Laird, who had an American Flag tied around her head and was not wearing pants or underwear. Authorities said Laird had taken the flags, which belong to the city of Bussey, and damaged them.
She gave police a fake name and when deputies tried to arrest her, she hit one of them in the face, the documents said. Deputies eventually got her into the back seat of a patrol vehicle, but before one deputy could shut the door, she kicked them.
When she arrived at the jail, authorities searched Laird's bag and found drug paraphernalia inside, the court documents say.
Is it legal to burn the American flag? Past cases involving flag burning
Flag desecration and burning have long been a point of discussion among U.S. lawmakers.
The issue has been hotly contested in past cases, such as a June 1966 incident in which a Brooklyn veteran burned an American flag on a street corner after he learned that civil rights activist James Meredith was shot, according to the Freedom Forum.
When the veteran was arrested for violating a New York flag desecration law, he said, 'Yes, that is my flag; I burned it. If they let that happen to Meredith, we don't need an American flag.'
The New York Court of Appeals argued that flag burning was an attempt to incite violence, posing a danger to public peace. While the Supreme Court did not rule on the flag desecration law he was accused of breaking, it did rule that he could not be punished for "verbally disrespecting the flag," per the Freedom Forum.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case because lawmakers could not come to an agreement about whether he was convicted for burning the flag or the words he said at the time.
While there are some state flag desecration laws, if enforced, they are likely to be overruled.
What can people be charged with in relation to American flags?
According to the Freedom Forum, freedom of speech applies to more than spoken words. That means expressions such as burning the flag, books, newspaper articles, online posts, theater and dance and even video games are considered "symbolic speech."
There are some instances in which citizens could be charged for desecrating the flag even if the act of burning the flag itself is protected, the Freedom Forum said. Those who burn the flag in places with high fire risks could face charges for the act of burning something, the Freedom Forum said.
And like the most recent case out of Iowa, stealing someone else's flag to burn could also be criminal, the organization said.
"Burning the flag to deliberately provoke a violent response from someone else or in order to incite others to imminent lawless violence is not protected either," the Freedom Forum said.
Saleen Martin is a reporter on USA TODAY's NOW team. She is from Norfolk, Virginia – the 757. Email her at sdmartin@usatoday.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Argentina's Kirchner urges backers not to gather as police deploy
Argentine ex-president Cristina Kirchner urged supporters Friday not to gather outside her Buenos Aires apartment, where she is serving a six-year fraud sentence, saying she feared police violence. Kirchner alleged on social media the government had "orchestrated a police operation at the door of my house with the sole purpose of provoking conflicts." She called on her backers, who held a days-long vigil outside her flat, to exercise "wisdom and restraint" and to organize a demonstration planned for Friday elsewhere. AFP witnessed police barriers around the building, with several police trucks stationed nearby. The 72-year-old, convicted of "fraudulent administration" over public works contracts awarded during her 2007-2015 two-term presidency, had an appeal overturned by the Supreme Court last week. The court upheld her sentence and a life ban on holding public office. A different judge allowed Kirchner to serve her sentence at home, which quickly became the scene of solidarity demonstrations. On Wednesday, tens of thousands of people marched on a central square under the banner "Argentina with Cristina." The following day, a judge ruled Kirchner may use her second-floor balcony, under which supporters had been keeping vigil and where she made several brief appearances. A ban on "any behavior that could disturb the peace of the neighborhood" had led to fears she could be confined indoors. Kirchner has challenged limited visitation rights ordered by the court, restricted to family members, doctors and lawyers in what her team described as "a totally arbitrary exclusion regime." There has been speculation Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva could try and visit her when he travels to Buenos Aires for a summit in July. He would have to request a court's permission. sa/dga/ial/lpt/mlr/sms
an hour ago
Former mayor from Haiti gets prison time for lying to get into the US
CONCORD, N.H. -- CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A former mayor from Haiti convicted of lying about his violent past on his visa application was sentenced Friday to nine years in prison and three years of supervision, after which he will be subject to deportation proceedings. Jean Morose Viliena, of Malden, Massachusetts, was the mayor of Les Irois, Haiti, from December 2006 until February 2010. He was convicted of three counts of visa fraud in March and sentenced Friday in federal court in Boston. 'For more than a decade, he lived freely and comfortable in this country while the victims of his brutality lived in fear, exile and pain,' U.S. Attorney Leah Foley said in statement. 'Today's sentence brings a measure of justice for the lives he shattered and sends a clear message: the United States will not be a safe have for human rights abusers.' According to prosecutors, Viliena committed 'violent atrocities' against his political foes in an isolated, rural community of about 22,000 residents on Haiti's western tip. In 2007, he was accused of leading a group of his allies to the home of a political opponent, where he and his associates shot and killed the opponent's younger brother, then smashed his skull with a rock. In 2008, Viliena and his allies went armed with guns, machetes, picks and sledgehammers to shut down a community radio station that he opposed, prosecutors said. Authorities said he pistol-whipped and punched a man and ordered an associate to shoot and kill the man and another person. Both survived, but one of the men lost a leg and the other was blinded in one eye. When he applied for a visa to enter the U.S., however, Viliena denied having 'ordered, carried out or materially assisted in extrajudicial and political killings and other acts of violence against the Haitian people.' He later received a permanent resident card and has raised a child who is a U.S. citizen by birth, prosecutors said. Defense attorneys argued in court that it was members of a rival political party — including some who they say are government witnesses — who committed the violence. They described the former mayor as the son of a farmer who became a teacher and eventually ran for mayor to improve conditions in town. In 2023, Viliena was found liable by an American jury in a civil trial
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court allows vape companies to pick courts to hear challenges
Advertisement Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the opinion, which sent the case back to a lower court for more proceedings. Jackson wrote that the majority's opinion allows Reynolds to make an 'end run around … venue restrictions.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The FDA had told the justices that R.J. Reynolds and other electronic cigarette manufacturers were gaming court system rules by filing the vast majority of product-denial appeals in the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, even though they were based in other appeals court circuits. The tactic was hindering the FDA's ability to regulate vapes that are used by hundreds of thousands of teenagers, the agency said. In the case before the justices, the 5th Circuit — widely seen as more sympathetic to the companies' arguments than other circuits — overturned the FDA's denial of an R.J. Reynolds application. Advertisement The electronic cigarette ruling was one of six decisions issued Friday, with at least a week left in the Supreme Court's term. Ten decisions remain, including cases involving the legality of age-verification laws to access online pornography and nationwide court orders blocking President Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. In addition to the vape decision, the Supreme Court on Friday revived lawsuits brought by US victims of terrorist attacks in Israel against the Palestine Liberation Organization. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., upheld a 2019 federal law passed in response to attacks that allows Americans to sue. The court said that law does not violate the rights of the PLO. In a 7-2 decision, the justices also cleared the way for fuel producers to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over California's stricter standards for vehicle emissions. California's efforts are already in flux after being targeted by Trump and Republicans in Congress. Under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, manufacturers must get FDA approval to sell some existing products, as well as new products, that are marketed in more than one state. The Vuse line of menthol vapes are the ones in question in the R.J. Reynolds case. Ryan J. Watson, who is representing R.J. Reynolds, told the justices at oral arguments that the company was permitted to file a challenge in the 5th Circuit because the act allows 'any person adversely affected' by a denial to file a challenge in the District of Columbia Circuit or the 'circuit in which such person resides or has their principal place of business.' Advertisement R.J. Reynolds partnered with a Texas vape store and the Mississippi Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association to bring the challenge to the FDA ruling. The 5th Circuit covers Texas and Mississippi, while R.J. Reynolds is in the 4th Circuit. Vivek Suri, an assistant to the solicitor general, arguing on behalf of the government, said Congress never meant for retailers or their representatives, rather than manufacturers, to be parties to such litigation when it passed the act. He pointed out that retailers aren't notified when the FDA rejects manufacturers' applications to market vaping products and said the tactic defeats the venue restrictions laid out in the law. But the Supreme Court said Friday it has long established a broad interpretation of what it means to be adversely affected by a law, including in the category anyone even 'arguably within the zone of interests' that the statute regulates. Vape industry groups applauded the ruling. Watson, the attorney for R.J. Reynolds, said the court 'recognized that federal agency action can have downstream effects that can be devastating for parties that are not the most direct target of the agency's action.' The ruling ensures that 'the courthouse doors are not closed for those adversely affected parties,' he said. Yolonda C. Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the decision will bolster efforts to market addictive products to young people. The ruling 'gives e-cigarette manufacturers an open invitation to forum-shop for friendly courts in their relentless quest to lure and addict kids with flavored, nicotine-loaded products,' she said. In her dissent to Friday's ruling, Jackson noted that two other appeals courts had rejected similar challenges filed by other manufacturers of flavored electronic cigarettes before R.J. Reynolds filed its appeal to the 5th Circuit. Advertisement 'It thus became (perhaps) imperative from RJR Vapor's perspective that its own lawsuit challenging the FDA's denial of its flavored e-cigarette marketing applications be filed somewhere else,' Jackson wrote.
