Posted on 07/08/2020 7:24:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faces murder and manslaughter charges for kneeling on George Floyd's neck until he stopped breathing. But even if Chauvin is convicted, Floyd's family may not be able to pursue claims under a federal statute that authorizes lawsuits against government officials who violate people's constitutional rights.
The uncertain prospects for the lawsuit Floyd's relatives plan to file underlines the unjust and irrational consequences of qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields police from liability for outrageous conduct when the rights they violated were not "clearly established" at the time. Congress should seize the opportunity created by Floyd's May 25 death and the nationwide protests it provoked to abolish that doctrine, which the Supreme Court unlawfully grafted onto the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
Was it "clearly established" on May 25 that kneeling on a prone, handcuffed arrestee's neck for nearly nine minutes violated his Fourth Amendment rights? The issue is surprisingly unsettled in the 8th Circuit, which includes Minnesota.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit blocked civil rights claims in two recent cases with broadly similar facts: handcuffed detainees who died after being restrained face down by several officers. Unlike those detainees, Floyd was not actively resisting at the time of his death, except to repeatedly complain that he could not breathe.
While that distinction could make a difference in the constitutional analysis, we can't be sure. Even if the 8th Circuit concluded that Chauvin's actions were unconstitutional, it could still decide the law on that point was not clear enough at the time of Floyd's arrest, meaning Chauvin would receive qualified immunity.
The 8th Circuit could even reach the latter conclusion without resolving the constitutional question, as courts have commonly done since 2009, when the Supreme Court began allowing that shortcut. To defeat qualified immunity in this case, says UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz, a leading critic of the doctrine, Floyd's family "would have to find cases in which earlier defendants were found to have violated the law in precisely the same way."
This term, the Court had 13 opportunities to revisit qualified immunity, but it has not accepted any of those petitions and so far has rejected all but one. Those rejected cases included one that posed this question: "Does binding authority holding that a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he uses a police dog to apprehend a suspect who has surrendered by lying down on the ground 'clearly establish' that it is likewise unconstitutional to use a police dog on a suspect who has surrendered by sitting on the ground with his hands up?"
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit thought not. Dissenting from his colleagues' refusal to review that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas reiterated his doubts about qualified immunity, saying, "There likely is no basis for the objective inquiry into clearly established law that our modern cases prescribe."
Given the Supreme Court's lack of interest in reconsidering qualified immunity, Congress has a responsibility to reassert its legislative powers by revoking this license for police abuse. Last week, Schwartz and more than 300 other law professors urged Congress to do so, noting that the doctrine gives cops not only "one free pass" but also a "continuing free pass" by allowing courts to block claims without ruling on their merits, thus ensuring "that no law becomes clearly established."
The Ending Qualified Immunity Act, which Rep. Justin Amash, L-Mich., introduced last month, so far has 64 cosponsors, all but one of whom are Democrats. The situation is similar in the Senate, where Mike Braun, R-Ind., recently unveiled the Reforming Qualified Immunity Act, which would narrow the doctrine and make municipalities liable for police misconduct.
This issue is a test for conservatives who defend the rule of law and the separation of powers. Both of those principles are undermined by a judicially invented loophole that allows government officials to escape accountability when they abuse their powers.
Lol, what “facts?” Did you report the police misconduct you witnessed during your ride-alongs?
Ok.
Lol, what “facts?” Did you report the police misconduct you witnessed during your ride-alongs?
Why do you always asks two unrelated questions? You're a logical fallacy generator.
Take a breath and start over.
Why start over? I think he’s achieving his objectives.
Answer them one at a time, if you need to. Did you not report the police misconduct you witnessed in your five ride-alongs? If not, why not?
You burped:
You don’t think cops doing their job correctly in high crime areas don’t get frivolous complaints filed against them?And I'll ask you as I asked the other poster just before you butted in: Why don't you show them to us?
Answer, or go away.
Why go after Chauvin when it's the Minneapolis Police Department that has the deep pockets? They should be good for seven figures while Chauvin probably has next to nothing.
Did you report what you saw that “aided in your thoughts” that all misconduct complaints are genuine? If you don’t want to answer that, it’s fine. I wouldn’t believe you anyway. If you don’t care, fine. But, as a hint, “facts” are independently verifiable. Your phony BS is not.
Why not just make it subject to summary shooting by the police officer?
Back to a million distractions.
Show me the data on frivolous accusations.
Lol, lying noob.
Lol....giggle giggle
You write and read like a 13 year old girl.
Show me the data.
“Would any government even allow motor vehicles to operate on public roads if it could be sued for damages every time someone was involved in a motor vehicle crash?”
It wouldn’t stop there. Sanctuary city/county/state govs could be held liable. It’s why serious reform will never happen.
I am all for qualified immunity. What I am not for is prosecutors and judges stretching beyond all recognition the standard of “qualified immunity”. It has gotten so bad that in only the most extreme cases of physical abuse does a cop of government get held accountable in either a criminal or civil case.
If a cop “knew or should have known” that his actions were a violation of the civil rights of an arrestee, qualified immunity is unavailable.
Prosecutors and judges to often fall back on the excuse that there is no other case that has the exact specific facts as the case being reviewed, and therefore the cop and the government is not liable. This is absurd.
As a determined molly coddler, you and your ilk are the root of the problem by in essence promoting criminal activity
They’re too busy licking those nice shiny jackboots.
Quite right. Shoot suspects on sight and sooner or later your crime rate drops. Brilliant idea. </sarcasm>
More of a strawman builder.
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.