Posted on 07/09/2024 10:04:37 AM PDT by CFW
Officers should have known that handcuffing a compliant 10-year-old is unnecessary, the court ruled.
In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, a judicial doctrine that shields government officials from civil suits in cases where the rights they allegedly violated were not clearly established by prior case law. The doctrine protects a wide variety of abusive officials from legal consequences and makes it harder for victims to hold them accountable.
Citing previous rulings holding that handcuffing a complaint child surrounded by adults constituted excessive force, the 9th Circuit wrote, "no reasonable official could have believed that the level of force employed against ten-year-old N.B. as alleged in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint—namely, placing her in adult handcuffs to transport her to the police station—was necessary."
In 2020, school officials at Honowai Elementary called Tamara Taylor, the mother of the 10-year-old girl, who is identified as N.B. in the lawsuit, because another parent demanded that the school report her daughter to the police. N.B. had allegedly participated in drawing an offensive sketch of a student in response to that student bullying her.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Too many cops are control-freak nutjobs. They purposely do not hire the brightest candidates for the job.
She drew a naughty picture. Then she went for the donuts...
That sketch must have been extremely offensive.
Never mind the handcuffs— since when is drawing an offensive picture a crime by anyone, let alone a 10 year old? And why are school officials acting as the agent of one parent against another?
“Although the 9th Circuit denied the Honolulu police officers qualified immunity against Taylor’s excessive force claims, it did dismiss her false arrest claim against the officers, ruling that Taylor failed to cite cases with identical circumstances, and that her general claim that one has the right to be free from arrest without probable cause was insufficient.”
No precedent with IDENTICAL circumstances. That is one of the most ridiculous rulings applied in so many cases against police officers. “Well, the officer was never explicitly told not to handcuff a 10 year old, withhold her from her parent, and keep her in jail for four hours. Who could have known it would be frowned upon?”
This stuff ends when uniformed assailants and civil rights violators routinely go to prison.
This stuff ends when judgments against public servants come out of the public servants’ own pockets.
I am 100% in favor of qualified immunity. But only when a police officer must make a quick decision while under stress and pressure.
But when the cop casually* behaves like trash, no qualified immunity. The cop should be open to both personal lawsuits and criminal charges.
* And that’s the key word: casually.
her general claim that one has the right to be free from arrest without probable cause was insufficient
is disgusting.
Because they are so dangerous.
They should probably not do this.
I am not, and this case illustrates why. "Qualified immunity" is routinely abused. Public servants must be held personally accountable for their abuses of the trust we place in them. Hillary Clinton, for example, should be spending the rest of her unnatural life in prison.
I wouldn’t say that there is never a reason to handcuff a child. However, if the child is compliant and was not violent beforehand then I don’t see the need.
Offensive drawings should be handled by the school. It shouldn’t be a police matter.
You’re exactly correct. Removing qualified immunity subjects officers to personal liability for every traffic ticket they write.
If they do their job according to the US Constitution, their training and department policies, there should be immunity. If t=raining and policies are unconstitutional, the department and municipality must be at risk. The Constitution overrides everything. Last I saw, the 1st amendment protects even offensive speech and drawings of bullies.
Thus, these cops were wrong and the court was correct. I hope the family settles the suit soon for at least the full amount.
Of course the school called the cops.
> I am not, and this case illustrates why. <
I should have been clearer. This case illustrates what I was saying. The little girl was no threat to anyone. There was no sense of urgency. Yet the cops *casually* decided to cuff her.
No qualified immunity here. The cops should be liable for a personal lawsuit. And more than that. They should be arrested for their criminal behavior.
FYI, Probable Cause required for arrest in turn requires evidence of a CRIME being committed. At first glance, don’t see a crime here.
Typical police behavior. When in doubt, handcuff and put in jail, sort it out later. Detaining subject with handcuffs when not under arrest. Detaining subjects with no probable cause. Call 911 because you were robbed but the perp already fled scene, well no one is coming but here’s a number saying you reported it, now goodbye.
Too many people fine “I was just doing my job” as an acceptable reason to excuse such misdemeanor ... and it’s certainly not limited to cops “just doing their job.” Cheers!
Well, at least the cops went home safe that night.
(/s possibly needed by some)
I’ve noticed that many cops go after the weakest targets and especially females....feeds their macho image....or so they think..
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.