Local

Supreme Court sides with police officers in two qualified immunity cases

In two unsigned opinions on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of police officers seeking limited immunity from allegations of excessive force. In both cases, the judge overturned the lower court’s decision against police officers. Disagree — The court suggests that, at least for now, it has no intention of radically changing the way it considers limited immunity cases. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine developed by the courts that protects law enforcement agencies from liability for unconstitutional violations, including excessive allegations. Power. In recent years, legal scholars, lawmakers and judges have criticized this doctrine, claiming that it is not based on proper legal authority and that it protects civil servants from accountability too much. Calls on the court to significantly review the doctrine that was strengthened after George Floyd was killed in 2020. In existing case law, officers are not liable for violations of the Constitution unless the Constitution is “clearly established”. A previous case in which the act in question was unconstitutional. Critics say the bar is too expensive, forcing those who claim excessive power to look for previous cases with about the same facts. However, on Monday, the judge revealed that the case of his predecessor was unusual and that a traditional framework could hold. “Monday’s case is further evidence of the Supreme Court. It does not intend to rethink the basics of the doctrine, and judges generally say that in most cases plaintiffs still need to find and argue about the same case. Reaffirming the idea. ” “This means that civil servants can continue to infringe on people’s rights with immunity until Congress addresses the limited immunity, and otherwise,” Schweikert sai d. One of the opinions released on Monday stems from the controversy in California. Police officer Daniel Rivas-Villegas answered a 911 call that reported that women and their children were afraid that their boyfriend Ramon Cortesluna could hurt them. A crying 12-year-old girl called her mother and sister locked up in a room and Cortez Luna trying to hurt them with a chainsaw. When the policeman came home, Cortez Luna appeared as follows: I was instructed. As he walked towards the officer, Rivas-Villegas eventually straddled Cortesluna and found a knife in his pocket. He placed his knees on the left side of Cortes Luna’s back, near where the knife was, and raised his arms behind his back. Rivas-Villegas was in that position for about 8 seconds. Cortesluna sued Rivas-Villegas for using excessive force. The Court of Appeals ruled the police officer because the “existing case” found that his actions constitute excessive power. The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that there was a de facto distinction between the case and the case at hand, overturning the decision. The second case was about Dominique Loris from Oklahoma, Loris in the garage. Being drunk, his ex-wife called 911. Please do not leave. Officers Josh Gardner, Chase Reed and Brandon Vic replied. They met their wife in front of the garage and started talking to Loris from the doorway. A police body camera video captured Loris still talking to a police officer as he turned around to walk to where the tools were hanging. He grabbed a hammer and faced a policeman who asked him to drop it while pulling a gun, but instead he lifted it behind his back as if he was throwing it at them and trying to rush. In response, the policeman fired a weapon and killed him. Loris’ property has filed a proceeding. A committee of judges at the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against officers, partly claiming that they had “recklessly” cornered him. The court pointed out several cases stating that the act was clearly proven to be illegal. The Supreme Court again claimed that “on this record” the officers did not violate well-established law.

In two unsigned opinions on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of police officers seeking limited immunity from allegations of excessive power.

In both cases, the judge overturned the lower court’s decision against the officers.

The ruling, and the fact that there is no publicly challenged justice, suggests that the court does not want to radically change the way it considers limited immunity cases, at least for now.

Qualified immunity is a court-developed doctrine that protects law enforcement agencies from liability for violations of the Constitution, including claims of excessive force. In recent years, legal scholars, lawmakers and judges have criticized this doctrine, claiming that it is not based on proper legal authority and that it protects civil servants from accountability too much. Calls on the court to consider a substantially new doctrine that was strengthened after George Floyd was killed in 2020.

In existing case law, violations of the Constitution will not be liable to officers unless the act in question has been “clearly established” by a previous case. Critics say the bar is too expensive and force those who claim excessive power to look for previous cases with about the same facts.

Last year, there were two cases in which the court wiped out the opinion of the lower court, which gave government officials a limited immunity, and some believed that the court was moving in a new direction to break the doctrine.

However, on Monday, the judge revealed that the previous semester case was outlier and that the traditional framework could hold.

“Monday’s case is further evidence that the Supreme Court does not intend to rethink the basics of doctrine, and judges often need to find nearly identical cases in which plaintiffs make their allegations. It reaffirms the general idea that there is, “said Jay Schweikart. , A researcher at the Cato Institute studying this issue.

“This means that civil servants can continue to infringe on people’s rights with immunity until Congress addresses the limited immunity, and otherwise,” Schweikart said.

One of the opinions announced on Monday was Conflict in California.. Police officer Daniel Rivas-Villegas answered a 911 call that reported that women and their children were afraid that their boyfriend Ramon Cortesluna could hurt them. On a phone call from a crying 12-year-old girl, she, her mother and sister shut themselves up in the room, and Cortez Luna said she was trying to hurt them with a chainsaw.

When the policeman came home, Cortes Luna appeared as instructed. As he walked towards the officer, Rivas-Villegas eventually straddled Cortesluna and found a knife in his pocket. He placed his knees on the left side of Cortes Luna’s back, near where the knife was, and raised his arms behind his back. Rivas-Villegas stayed in that position for about 8 seconds.

Cortesluna has filed a proceeding alleging that Rivas-Villegas used excessive force.

The Court of Appeals ruled against the officer as “existing case law” notified him that his actions constitute excessive power. The Supreme Court on Monday overturned the decision, finding that there was a de facto distinction between the case and the case at hand.

Second case from Oklahoma, Dominique Loris, whom his ex-wife called 911, was worried because Loris was drunk in the garage and didn’t leave. Officers Josh Gardner, Chase Reed and Brandon Vic replied. They met his wife in front of the garage and started talking to Loris from the doorway. A police body camera video captured Loris still talking to a police officer as he turned around to walk to where the tools were hanging. He grabbed the hammer and faced a policeman who asked him to drop the hammer while pulling the gun.

Instead, he raised it behind his back, as if he was about to throw it at them and charge. In response, the policeman fired a weapon and killed him.

Loris Real Estate has filed a proceeding. A committee of judges at the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against officers, partly claiming that they had “recklessly” cornered him. The court pointed out several cases stating that the act was clearly proven to be illegal. The Supreme Court again claimed that “on this record” the officers did not violate well-established law.

Supreme Court sides with police officers in two qualified immunity cases Source link Supreme Court sides with police officers in two qualified immunity cases

Related Articles

Back to top button