Posted on 10/18/2021 9:24:55 AM PDT by RandFan
The Supreme Court on Monday sided with law enforcement in a pair of cases that implicated “qualified immunity,” the controversial legal doctrine that gives police broad protection from lawsuits.
In a pair of unsigned summary rulings issued without noted dissent, the justices reversed two federal appeals courts that had permitted excessive force lawsuits to proceed against officers in separate cases arising from California and Oklahoma.
The justices ruled the officers should be granted qualified immunity, which shields government officials from liability unless it is proven they violated a “clearly established” right, a difficult legal hurdle.
Both lawsuits dealt with police responses to an emergency 911 call.
The California case involved a man wielding a chainsaw who had threatened his girlfriend and her two minor children, forcing them to barricade themselves inside a room, according to the 911 call.
When Union City police confronted the suspect, they noticed a knife in his pocket. Officer Daniel Rivas-Villegas put his knee on the suspect’s back, near the pocket that contained the knife, for a period of eight seconds, as another officer placed the suspect under arrest.
The suspect sued Rivas-Villegas for excessive force. A federal district judge ruled for the officer, prompting an appeal by the suspect, Ramon Cortesluna.
The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the district court's ruling, finding that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because "existing precedent put him on notice that his conduct constituted excessive force.”
The justices, in overturning the 9th Circuit, held that the precedent cited by the lower court was too different from the facts at hand for Rivas-Villegas to have received “fair notice” that his conduct amounted to excessive force.
In the Oklahoma case, officers with the Tahlequah police responded to a 911 call from a woman who said her ex-husband was intoxicated and refused to leave her garage.
When officers arrived and approached the suspect inside the garage, he grabbed a hammer and lifted it overhead as if preparing to throw it or charge at the officers. When he refused to drop the hammer, two officers shot and killed him.
The deceased’s estate filed a lawsuit against the officers, alleging their use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court sided with law enforcement, but a Denver-based federal appeals court reversed, finding that the officers had recklessly created the deadly situation by “cornering” the suspect in the garage.
In reversing the appeals court, the justices found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the court had not pointed to “a single precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation under similar circumstances.”
Yeah, I was thinkin’ that but wasn’t going to say it.
The California case is pretty stupid. There are plenty of bad uses of police authority that should be fully prosecuted, others that are not. Police should not have unfettered immunity, it should be subject to meaningful review so that bad cops can be fired, prosecuted, and jailed.
We really need to address the fundamental lawlessness behind Frothingham v Mellon too.
Qualified Immunity has been in place since the 1960’s, from what I’m seeing.
As a matter of function, it’s aim is to reduce court and police workload that would otherwise be spent if a case was allowed to proceed to trial.
Whether or not a principle is reasonable misses the point, I think. Any pronciple (like any tool) can be properly used, or it can be abused. State secret, immunity, firearms, exigenent circumstances piercing 4th amendment. All tools that can used for good, and can also be used for bad.
We are coming into a time (heavy-handed government enabled by governmnet-paid and system-loving court minions) where I am of a mind that immunity for government actors is more likely to be abused than to be used for good. It’s a pointless observation. QI is a judicially created widget. There is nothing can be done to reign it in or control it. The courts will do what the courts will do, and no matter how bad the courts behave, there will bo no correction.
No clearly established right not to be manhandled with excessive force by government thugs? (Not that most police officers have historically been government thugs, of course.)
Giving rights to police over other civilians is a dangerous precedent.
Can I have qualified immunity too?
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.