WARREN — Attorneys for some current and past Trumbull County officials and law enforcement officers argued before a federal appeals court that Commissioner Niki Frenchko’s arrest during a July 2022 meeting was lawful and justified, as she repeatedly disrupted the proceedings.

The officials are seeking a reversal of a lower court ruling in Frenchko’s favor, citing qualified immunity and denying allegations of First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy.

The arresting officers and county officials maintain that Frenchko’s behavior warranted her removal under Ohio law, and no constitutional rights were violated. The defense brief highlights the events that led to Frenchko’s arrest.

According to officers, Frenchko interrupted the meeting multiple times, mocked the clerk reading a letter, and refused to yield the floor when asked. The disruptions reportedly caused the presiding commissioners to call for order multiple times before summoning Trumbull County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Harold Wix to remove Frenchko from the meeting.

The defense claims that Wix and Sgt. Robert Ross acted appropriately, citing a neutral post-arrest finding of probable cause, which the defense argues supports the legality of the officers’ actions.

In addition to rejecting Frenchko’s Fourth Amendment claims of unlawful seizure, the brief contends that her First Amendment rights were not infringed. While Frenchko claims her speech was protected, the defense argues that her conduct, rather than the content of her speech, violated Ohio law by disrupting a public meeting.

“The timing, placement, and nature of her interruptions were the issue, not the speech itself,” the brief states.

The case also raises a civil conspiracy allegation, which Frenchko claims involved Commissioners (Frank) Fuda and (Mauro) Cantalamessa, as well as Trumbull County Sheriff Paul Monroe, in orchestrating her arrest. However, the defense argues that no evidence supports the existence of a conspiracy, noting that Frenchko has failed to provide any documentation of coordinated actions between the commissioners and the sheriff. Text message and phone records show no communication between the defendants during the time leading up to the arrest, according to the brief.

Frenchko’s lawsuit, initially filed after her arrest, includes claims of First Amendment retaliation, false arrest, and civil conspiracy. The defense is urging the appellate court to reverse the lower court’s denial of qualified and statutory immunity for the defendants. They argue that there was probable cause for Frenchko’s arrest based on her behavior and that no officials engaged in retaliatory actions against her.

If successful, the appeal could reinstate protections for the county officials, shielding them from further legal liability in connection to the arrest.

Meanwhile, Frenchko’s legal team is maintaining that her arrest was an overreach and a violation of her rights as an elected official, setting the stage for a high-profile ruling on the balance between free speech and order in public meetings.