A prosecutor in northern Idaho announced on Monday that hate crime charges will not be filed against an 18-year-old accused of shouting racist slurs at members of the University of Utah women’s basketball team during the NCAA tournament. The decision, issued by Coeur d’Alene’s deputy attorney Ryan Hunter, stated that while the slur was “detestable” and “incredibly offensive,” there was no evidence of physical threats or property damage, and thus the conduct was protected by the First Amendment.
The incident occurred in March when the Utah team was staying at a Coeur d’Alene hotel while competing in a tournament in Spokane, Washington. According to Tony Stewart of the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations, the women were walking from their hotel to a restaurant when a truck approached, and the driver yelled a racial slur at them. The same driver returned later when the team was leaving the restaurant, revving his engine and shouting more slurs. Utah’s coach, Lynne Roberts, said the episodes were unsettling and caused the team to worry about their safety.
This type of behavior isn’t new to the area. Far-right groups have had a presence in the Spokane and northern Idaho region for years, with at least nine hate groups operating in the area as of 2018, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The prosecutor’s decision not to press charges drew criticism but ultimately hinged on legal technicalities. While Idaho’s hate crime law, known as malicious harassment, criminalizes racial harassment, it requires intent to threaten or cause physical harm to a person or property. The slur-yelling suspect, an 18-year-old high school student, told police he used the slur because he thought it would be funny. Prosecutor Hunter condemned the racist language but said it did not meet the legal threshold for a hate crime.
After interviewing nearly two dozen witnesses and reviewing surveillance footage, police found discrepancies in vehicle descriptions and no audio evidence capturing the slur. Even though a suspect confessed to shouting a racial slur and an obscene statement, prosecutors could not link the earlier incident to the second encounter, complicating efforts to file charges. Additionally, Idaho’s laws on disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace focus on noise or unruly behavior in specific contexts, which did not align with the facts of this case.
Aaron Terr, public advocacy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, emphasized that while offensive or hateful speech is distasteful, it is protected under the First Amendment. He noted that exceptions to the First Amendment—such as true threats and incitement—are narrowly defined and not applicable to this situation. While Terr acknowledged that protecting offensive speech can be challenging, he stated that it’s crucial to maintain a balance to prevent government overreach in deciding what speech is too offensive.
Despite the lack of legal grounds to press charges, Hunter and others strongly condemned the hateful behavior, reaffirming that even though it isn’t criminally prosecutable, it is unacceptable in any context. University of Utah officials declined to comment on the prosecutor’s decision.
