Posted on 02/22/2023 5:53:22 PM PST by algore
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away an Ohio man's claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested and prosecuted for making satirical posts about his local police department on Facebook.
The justices' rejection of Anthony Novak's appeal means his civil rights lawsuit against the Parma Police Department cannot move forward. With its decision, the court again declined to consider revisiting "qualified immunity," the contentious legal defense that lets police officers and other government officials off the hook in civil rights cases if constitutional violations have not been "clearly established" when they occur.
At issue was whether a lower court correctly granted the police officers qualified immunity under the rationale that previous court precedent had not clearly established that Novak's actions constituted protected speech under the Constitution's First Amendment.
In March 2016, Novak set up a Facebook page that purported to be that of the Parma Police Department. He published six satirical posts in 12 hours, one of which claimed there was a job opening to which minorities were encouraged not to apply and another that warned people not to give food, money or shelter to homeless people.
The police department, claiming the posts had disrupted its operations, launched an investigation and ultimately searched Novak's apartment, arrested him and jailed him for four days.
Novak was charged under a state law that criminalizes disruption of police operations but acquitted at trial.
The police officers, Kevin Riley and Thomas Connor, say they had probable cause to arrest Novak because they genuinely believed his conduct was disrupting their operations.
After lengthy litigation, a federal judge dismissed Novak's claims. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling in April that "the officers reasonably believed they were acting within the law" even if his Facebook page was obviously a parody. That's because there was no court precedent saying it's a violation of the Constitution to be arrested in retaliation for satirical remarks when the officers have probable cause, the court said.
Qualified immunity has long been criticized for protecting police officers on legal technicalities even when obvious constitutional violations have taken place. It has often been used to protect officers accused of using excessive force. Qualified immunity reform became a key part of calls for greater police accountability in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020.
Among those backing Novak's appeal was the satirical news site The Onion, which filed a lighthearted brief saying its writers "have a self-serving interest in preventing political authorities from imprisoning humorists."
Ehhh… this sounds like it might be the right decision.
While he was jailed he was acquitted and he did write a disruptive website. While his rights may have been violated - he doesn’t have a clear case that the police were blatantly harassing him and not trying to do their job.
You can make a case either way and I think the court just played Solomon and split the baby…
Why is there no GVT accountability? For example, Gov Whitless of Michigan was found by the MI Supreme Court to force unconstitutional actions on MI Citizens. But got away with it.
There needs to be GVT accountability.
This is all related to a thing SCOTUS dreamed up out of whole cloth a few decades ago. Something called qualified immunity.
And it is not that he did not have a clear case it is that it would have been the FIRST case for THAT appeals court.
To put in very simply if the police officer beats the crap out of you because you... I don't know... maybe dated his former girl friend, and there has not been a case before the appeals court that charged a police officer on duty with beating the crap out of a citizen because they dated his former girl friend then "qualified immunity" kicks in and you can not sue him for violating your rights because without a previous case how could officer billy club know it was wrong to beat the crap out of someone because they were dating his former girlfriend.
I am neither joking or exaggerating. This was a chance for the SCOTUS to come out and say there is no qualified immunity for things that any employee of the state knows is blatantly wrong.
But they wimped.
Crap ruling. The guy was jailed for four days (four days!) for what were obviously satirical posts. The police were butt-hurt by his postings, so they wanted revenge. It’s just that simple.
I’d like to say more, but I’ve got to scrub the Internet of all my satirical posts regarding Joe Biden. I don’t want to go to jail.
Jackboot thug boot lickers the SCOTUS is. They do not protect the people.
Cowards.
Crap ruling.
This right here is British crown tyranny type stuff that led to the American Revolution.
If he can be jailed for 4 days and spend untold thousands of dollars defending himself for making cartoons, how long will it be before you or me can be jailed for disagreeing with or questioning authority.
This behavior and every person cop, prosecutor or politician should be held accountable. Qwikly and severely.
Before I delve into the Qualified Immunity thing, does anyone know what criminal violation he allegedly committed?
If I remember correctly the underlying reason for the arrest was “contempt of cop”
It really is sad that they don’t take the case.
But they don’t want to open Pandoras Box, which is exactly what would happen and should happen.
I’m not going to go into Qualified Immunity and what it is actually for, but, as a former cop, I’m not understanding how/why it applies in this case.
From what I read, the lower court just made up an incorrect decision on what qualified immunity is and how it should be applied.
the whole qualified immunity thing needs to be visited.
but like voter fraud, or ‘vax’ fraud, Ukrainian money laundering, or symbolically destroying Palestine won’t be.
Agreed. The slippery slope just got steeper.
100%, it does.
It’s only supposed to apply to LEOs that do their jobs PROPERLY. And when they do it PROPERLY, they can’t be sued civilly.
It would appear that arrest of a man for cartoons, ridiculing or being critical of his local police would NOT be considered PROPER.
But again, I do not know all the details.
It was bad enough in it's original form but now it is spreading to all government employees.
State universities are now trying to use it to say that as long as there is no prior court case saying they can not or must do something then they can do as they like.
This ends very badly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.