Posted on 07/02/2023 5:09:42 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Did you know that a doctrine known as “qualified immunity” shields local and state police from accountability? Federal cops enjoy an even broader, absolute immunity based on recent Supreme Court rulings that have eroded an earlier 1971 Supreme Court decision that allowed some lawsuits. Each of the federal circuit courts interprets prior high court rulings in its own way. In several cases, judges have shown common sense, allowing citizens to find a remedy when a federal cop violates their rights. Still, the weight of the law favors the feds.
Bizarre rulings in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits establish that, unless a federal incident exactly mirrors the 1971 case of Webster Bivens—a man who was handcuffed, arrested, and later strip-searched by federal agents after a warrantless search of his home—people whose rights are trampled by a federal officer have no remedy available to them.
As a result, the Constitution does not protect from abuse by federal police the millions of citizens residing in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska—all of whom fall in the districts covered by the Fifth and Eighth Circuits. This split among the courts means that Americans’ rights now depend on where they happen to live.
How bad is it?
Consider this headline from a June 21, 2022, press release from the Institute for Justice: “Supreme Court Ignores Constitutional Violations by Federal Police, Green Lights Absolute Immunity Even in Cases Dealing with Attempted Murder and Well-Documented Lies by Officers”
One petition to the Supreme Court sought to overturn a ruling from the Eighth Circuit appellate court granting immunity to a federally deputized St. Paul, Minnesota police officer whose well-documented lies cost Hamdi Mohamud, a teenage Somali refugee, two years of her life. When a rogue federal law enforcement officer...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Maybe letters of reprimand could be put in their file.
I always thought that if they step outside their area of responsibility, they lose their immunity.
If the abused could sue the individual it’s agent or regulator PERSONALLY instead of in conjunction with the government it may be a deterrent to abuse. As it is agent Tommy Tyrant is protected and he knows it
The judges don’t want to be held accountable to the people either.
That is exactly the problem. If you sue the government then you are really just suing the taxpayers and there is no deterrence from bad behavior for the person who works for the government.
I guess it would become a personal matter.
Wouldn’t matter. Most government employees are covered by “defense and indemnification” policies for a anything done on the job, fen if sued personally.
Bingo. Judges are covered by immunity as well.
I do think that the point is that the state now enjoys UNqualified immunity.
Federal politicians also have qualified immunity, they shouldn’t.
Qualified immunity is a staple of the royal elite class and their servants.
.
They are completely terrorized by the idea of taking responsibility and the disease has percolated throughout the society
Absolute immunity is NOT absolute. To believe so is ABSOLUTELY stupid. They want you to believe that, let’s take it to the edge, an LEO can commit 1st degree murder and get away with it, even with volumes of direct evidence. Hogwash!
Immunity to some extent, but not absolute! Federal judges have been recall before and charged.
Qualified Immunity was made up out of whole cloth by the supreme Court. It is unfortunate that even Thomas is going to be a roadblock to removing it. He has, in the past shown a great willingness to give an extraordinary amount of deference to police, especially feral ones.
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.