International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEA) Criminal Law Practice Exam

The correct outcome reflects the principle that law enforcement officers are mandated to maintain order and enforce the law while also being sensitive to the rights of individuals, including their freedom of speech. When Officer Jordan responded to the man who insulted him, he was operating within the context of his official duties. If it was determined that the man's behavior constituted interference with those duties—such as posing a threat to public safety or disrupting an investigation—then the arrest could be deemed justified.

In this scenario, it's crucial to recognize that insults or derogatory comments directed at an officer may not inherently justify an arrest unless they escalate to a level of interference that impacts the officer's ability to perform their duties effectively. The determination of whether the arrest was justified hinges on the specifics of how the man's actions affected Officer Jordan's responsibilities at that moment.

Moreover, the other options present situations that would typically not align with well-established norms in law enforcement. For example, a free speech violation would not apply unless the speech was inciting violence or directly obstructing justice. Similarly, a successful argument against the arrest in court or a reprimand for Officer Jordan would suggest a misjudgment in assessing the situation, indicating that there was no substantial basis for the officer’s actions, which contradict