Blog

Cowtown Cops vs. the Constitution

If the FWPD Gets the First Amendment Wrong, They Can’t Be Trusted on the Fourth

Fort Worth, Texas—Cowtown. The city that still carries the scent of stockyards and the stubborn spirit of independence. Yet this June, at Trinity Pride Fest, officers of the Fort Worth Police Department turned that proud legacy into a black mark. Multiple officers, including a supervisor, warned Christian street preachers that “offensive speech” could earn them tickets and that stepping onto public sidewalks risked arrest for trespassing. One preacher pressed: Could saying “homosexuality is a sin” or addressing a biological male as “sir” get him cited? Officers called it a “gray area.” Another put it plainly: offend someone, and “we have a problem.” A supervisor confirmed preaching in the permitted public space would lead to arrest.

This isn’t abstract legal theory. These are sworn officers, captured on bodycam, failing the most basic test of American governance. And if the Fort Worth Police Department cannot get the First Amendment right—viewpoint neutrality, public forums, and the flat rejection of the heckler’s veto—then we cannot trust them with the Fourth Amendment either. Or the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The Incidents: A Pattern of Constitutional Failure

The videos tell the story better than any summary. Officer Sarah Stogner warned preachers that offense from anyone would trigger a ticket. Challenged on “offensive speech,” she doubled down. Other officers, including Herrin, engaged on specifics—whether calling homosexuality a sin or using strong biblical language crossed the line. A supervisor went further, threatening arrest for trespass if the preachers entered the public space occupied by the Pride event.

These clips are Exhibit A

A female Fort Worth police officer was caught on camera threatening to ticket a retired federal law enforcement officer and Christian street preacher for “offensive speech.”

The officer told the man that if someone is offended by his preaching, then “we have a problem” and said she would issue him a ticket. When he asked if she was really going to ticket him for offensive speech, she replied, “Yes, I am.”

This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Police officers do not have the authority to ticket people for speech that offends others. That is the exact opposite of how freedom of speech works in America.

The fact that this officer targeted a retired federal law enforcement officer who was simply preaching makes this even more unacceptable.

Departments that employ officers who openly disregard the Constitution need to clean house. This kind of behavior erodes public trust and makes every good officer’s job harder.

Pass this along so more people see what is happening on our streets.

This was not rogue behavior. It was on-scene coordination, including supervisory direction, in a city with a documented history of tension with street preachers. The message delivered to citizens exercising core religious liberty was unmistakable: your rights end where someone else’s feelings begin. That is the precise opposite of the First Amendment.

Preacher: “So if we preach in here, we are going to be arrested for trespassing if we don’t leave?”

Officer: “Correct, sir.”

WTF is going on with Ft Worth police???

Viewpoint discrimination and the heckler’s veto have been rejected time and again by the Supreme Court. Public sidewalks remain traditional public forums, even during permitted events. A permit does not privatize the street or hand organizers veto power over disfavored speech. We should not follow the United Kingdom’s path, where police arrest Christian preachers for causing “anxiety” with their prayers while indulging far more disruptive behavior. That road leads to two-tiered policing and the slow replacement of constitutional order with emotional vetoes. Nipping this in the bud here in Texas is essential.

How Equity Hokum Crowds Out Civics and Constitutional Training

Chief Eddie Garcia’s approach—imported from San Jose and Dallas—illustrates the deeper problem. His emphasis on procedural justice, implicit bias training, diversity recruiting, and programs like “R.E.A.L. Change” sounds reasonable on paper. Building legitimacy in communities matters. But when these concepts dominate training and culture, they displace something more fundamental: the neutral, viewpoint-blind application of the Constitution.

Officers absorb lessons on historical inequities and perception management. They practice de-escalation tuned to avoid bias complaints. What gets shortchanged is rote mastery of black-letter law: content neutrality, the heckler’s veto prohibition, public forum doctrine, and the bright line between reasonable time/place/manner restrictions and viewpoint discrimination. The equity lens too often ranks sensitivities—elevating certain protected classes while treating traditional religious expression as presumptively problematic. The result is hesitation or overreach exactly where clarity is required.

I’ve seen this play out firsthand in Plano amid rapid demographic and cultural change. Preachers exercising their rights on public sidewalks become the problem to be managed, while event sensitivities are indulged. Basic civics—“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”—gets treated as secondary to modern policing “best practices.” When that shift happens, the entire constitutional framework weakens.

From First to Fourth: The Interlocking Nature of Rights

The connection is straightforward. Both the First and Fourth Amendments demand objective, individualized, government-restrained action. If officers treat “offense” as a valid trigger for speech restrictions, the same subjective mindset inevitably infects Fourth Amendment encounters: pretextual stops justified by vague “community concerns,” expanded searches under equity-weighted discretion, or use-of-force decisions driven by perceived group dynamics rather than immediate threat.

A department that cannot police public forums neutrally cannot be trusted to honor “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” The preacher incidents already suggest Monell exposure—custom or policy failures traceable to leadership. When equity supplants equal protection, selective enforcement follows. Texans raising families in changing neighborhoods deserve better: officers who know the Constitution as their first duty, not as an afterthought to sensitivity modules.

The Remedy: §1983 Litigation and Cultural Pressure

The preachers—Rich Penkoski, David Grisham (a retired federal officer), and others—have strong §1983 claims. Bodycam footage provides irrefutable evidence. Qualified immunity should not shield clear violations of clearly established rights. Supervisory involvement and the department’s pattern bolster municipal liability. These suits force discovery into training materials, expose the equity-over-civics imbalance, and deliver damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. They are the legal hammer.

Pair that with relentless cultural and political pressure. Amplify the videos. Engage local conservative networks, County GOP channels, and state leaders like AG Paxton. Demand training audits that prioritize SCOTUS precedents over layered equity frameworks. Hold leadership accountable—firings where justified, policy overhauls, and public reaffirmation of the oath. Sunlight and sustained, principled outrage work. Texas has the heritage and the values to lead this correction.

We cannot afford to become Britain, where prayer itself triggers arrests for causing anxiety. That future is visible in the UK videos today. Fort Worth must reject it decisively.

Conclusion – Restore Constitutional Priorities

Fort Worth should be known for upholding the rule of law, not importing coastal or British-style speech policing. The Bill of Rights is not optional. When one amendment falls, the others follow. It is time to restore constitutional priorities—before the black mark on Cowtown becomes a permanent stain. The preachers are defending ground that protects us all. Texans must stand with them. Nipping this in the bud now—through litigation, accountability, and a return to basic civics—preserves the Republic one department at a time. Cowtown Cops vs. the Constitution is a fight worth winning.

Like this post? Become a Citizen Producer!

James K. Bishop

James K. Bishop is a conservative writer and raconteur hailing from Texas, known for his incisive and often provocative takes on political and cultural issues. With a staunch commitment to originalist constitutional principles, he emphasizes limited government, individual liberties, and traditional American values. Active on X under the handle @James_K_Bishop, he frequently engages his audience with sharp critiques of progressive policies, media narratives, and overreaches by the federal government. His style is direct, often laced with humor and wit, which resonates strongly with his conservative followers.