Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, holds that providing a court with a vulgar email address does not warrant a contempt finding on its own.

In August 2024, Daniel Commans appeared before the Lake Havasu Municipal Court for a virtual arraignment on misdemeanor charges. When the court asked Commans to provide an email address, he told the court that he had two, spelling out the second: “Y‑A-E-G-R-S-U-X-C-O‑X-6‑9-6-9-6-9@gmail.com”—an apparent jab at the prosecutor, Charles Yaeger. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor reacted during the hearing, but the proceeding was continued to September. Afterward, the judge issued an order notifying Commans that, at the September hearing, he would have to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for providing the vulgar email address.

At the September hearing, Commans accepted a plea deal for 180 days in jail on the misdemeanor charges. Then, the municipal court stated that it had already found Commans in “direct contempt,” leaving sentencing as the only issue. After rejecting Commans’ First Amendment defense, the municipal court sentenced Commans to 180 days—the maximum allowed for contempt—to run consecutively with any other jail time.

Commans petitioned the superior court for special action review. The superior court affirmed on the grounds that the email address was unprotected “fighting words.” Commans appealed.

The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. While the Court quickly concluded that the email address did not constitute “fighting words,” it noted that courts do not violate the First Amendment simply by maintaining courtroom decorum. Nevertheless, the Court held that the municipal court judge abused his discretion because 1) Commans’s conduct did not justify a contempt finding and 2) the judge did not give Commans a chance to challenge the holding.

The Court first explained that Commans’s actions did not meet the threshold for contempt under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.1, which is violated only if the offender willfully disobeys a court order or willfully engages in unreasonable conduct. The Court concluded that Commans had done neither, seeing as the proceeding was undisturbed by his actions and he had not been warned against such actions previously.

Second, the Court found a due process violation because the municipal court had held Commans in contempt without notice or a hearing, which is only appropriate when the contempt occurs before the court and requires immediate punishment to restore order. Because the judge had not discovered the vulgarity of the email address until after the hearing, the Court concluded that it was error to deny Commans an opportunity to present a defense.

Judge Perkins authored the Court’s Opinion, joined by Judge Cattani.

Vice Chief Judge David Weinzweig concurred in part and dissented in part, adding that the 180‑day punishment was disproportionate to the offense and violated the Eighth Amendment.

Posted by: Jacob Abrahamian