Qualified immunity: Supreme Court sides with police, overturns denial of immunity in two cases

[Calista241]

Source: USA Today

The Supreme Court sided Monday with police in two cases in which plaintiffs claimed officers used excessive force, overturning separate lower court rulings that had allowed the officers to be sued for civil rights violations.

In two unsigned opinions, the court stressed police are entitled to be shielded from liability unless it is "clear to a reasonable officer" that their actions are unlawful. In both cases the court ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that protects police from liability for civil rights violations in many circumstances.

In one case, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that found an officer in California who placed his knee on a prone suspect could be sued. In another, it overturned a lower court ruling that two police officers in Oklahoma could be sued because their actions before a fatal shooting escalated the potential for violence.

...

There were no dissents from any justice in either case.

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/18/supreme-court-sides-police-qualified-immunitysupreme-court-sides-police-qualified-immunity-two-cases/6040359001/

[grumpyduck]

1. Fucking disgusting.

I'd like to see their response if a cop did something to them.

[jimfields33]

2. They must know more then we do. It was 100 percent approved by

entire Supreme Court. All 9 justices agreed.

[atreides1]

5. Not really!

As usual they're protecting the thugs with badges...the court has been doing that for some time now! They feel the need to provide cover for law enforcement, because of the affinity they have towards them!!!

[rsdsharp]

15. You don't know that the decision was unanimous.

Just because it’s per curium doesn’t mean they all agree, even if there’s no dissent. It’s impossible to tell with no names on the decision. Neither case had particularly good facts to find against qualified immunity, let alone argue for its out right abolition in a dissent.

[PatSeg]

19. That is what I was thinking

[onenote]

13. I'm curious as to whether you have read the decisions?

[Hoyt]

3. Don't think that decision changes anything. The Chauvins, etc., will still rot in jail.

[3Hotdogs]

7. Yes. Looks like they can be fired and prosecuted,

Just not sued.

[skypilot]

4. "clear to a reasonable officer" that their actions are unlawful?????

Isn't that a big part of the problem we're having? A lot of these officers are NOT reasonable, to say the least.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

6. That's the legal standard used since there were police.

[NullTuples]

9. And perhaps by cops are so abusive. Should be changed to "a reasonable person".

Cops in general, especially these last few years, seem to think nearly any violence is "reasonable".
Throw in the Constitutional ones and there are no limits.

[Dustlawyer]

17. To put what a "reasonable person" would or would not do in perspective,

Fox News attorney argued in Tucker Carlson’s libel, slander defense that no reasonable person would believe Tucker. He was successful with this crap although 40% in this country do believe what he says.

[NullTuples]

21. Looks like "reasonable" is a terrible & very subjective legal standard.

Unless one uses it precisely to mean "someone who uses reason that survives questioning".

[skypilot]

10. Yeah, and look where we are.

*

[abqtommy]

8. Does a 'reasonable Fascist polic officer' have any connection with 'reasonable

reTHUG Fascists' or the 'reasonable Fascist Supreme court? asking for a friend

[totodeinhere]

11. The three Democratic appointees to the Court are not fascists. n/t

[melm00se]

12. Here are the cases they ruled on

Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna

The questions were whether the Appeals court

1. denied qualified immunity by concluding that pushing a suspect down with a foot and briefly placing a knee against the back of a prone, armed suspect while handcuffing him, could constitute excessive force.

2. whether the 9th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s decision and denied qualified immunity even though two judges concluded the use of force was reasonable, and notwithstanding the absence of clearly established law imposing liability under circumstances closely analogous to those confronting the police.


City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma v. Bond

The questions were

1. Whether use of force that is reasonable at the moment it is employed can nonetheless violate the Fourth Amendment if the officers recklessly or deliberately created the need to use force;

2. whether it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that advancing toward an intoxicated individual wielding a deadly weapon inside a garage was a “reckless” act that would render unconstitutional any subsequent use of lethal force in response to a threat to officer safety.

Rulings are here.

[NullTuples]

22. In other words, they ruled (without signing)...

1. Cops can recklessly or deliberately create the need to use force, and then use force that is "reasonable at the moment it is employed" without violating the Fourth Amendment.

2. It's perfectly fine to rush an intoxicated individual and do whatever you please to them if you are a cop because you felt threatened once you rushed them.

I mean, at least they're consistent. Cops can create a situation where they get to thrash on people, and now it's solidified in law.

[onenote]

23. Where exactly do the decisions say that?

[melm00se]

24. Here are the facts

In CITY OF TAHLEQUAH, OKLAHOMA v. BOND

- Rollice was intoxicated.
- Rollice was retreating from the officers.
- Police ordered Rollice to stop.
- Rollice then grabbed a hammer from the back wall over the workbench and turned around
to face the officers.
- Rollice grasped the handle of the hammer with both hands, as if preparing to swing a baseball bat, and pulled it up to shoulder level.
- Rollice then raised the hammer higher back behind his head and took a stance as if he was about to throw the hammer or charge at the officers.
- Rollice had maneuvered to a position where he could charge the officers.
- At this point the officers fired their weapons.

From these facts as drawn from the court ruling, the shooting was justified as Rollice had in his possession a deadly weapon which could have severely injured if not killed the officers.

RIVAS-VILLEGAS v. CORTESLUNA

- Police responded to a call from a crying 12-year-old girl reporting that
she, her mother, and her 15-year-old sister had shut themselves into a room at their home because her mother’s boyfriend, Cortesluna, was trying to hurt them and had a chainsaw.
- Police knocked on the door and stated loudly, “‘police department, come to
the front door, Union City police, come to the front door.’”
- Cortesluna exited the house, dropped the weapon.
- Cortesluna complied with the officers but was armed with a knife.
- The officers ordered Cortesluna to keep his hands up while they disarmed him and took him into custody.
- Cortesluna instead lowered his hands.
- Officers then fired 2 beanbag rounds.
- Rivas-Villegas then straddled Cortesluna. He placed his right foot on the ground next to Cortesluna’s right side with his right leg bent at the knee. He placed his left knee on the left side of Cortesluna’s back, near where Cortesluna had a knife in his pocket.
- Rivas-Villegas was in this position for no more than eight seconds before standing
up while continuing to hold Cortesluna’s arms.

It appears that the officers employed the correct amount of force in order to take Cortesluna into custody and overruled the lower courts who erred in interpreting the LaLonde case.

Please bear in mind that both of these decisions were 9-0 unanimous decisions so it is pretty clear that both the conservative and liberal justices on these cases viewed the lower courts' rulings as being completely in error.

But never let the facts of a case get in the way of righteous outrage.

[onenote]

28. Thank you for the summary

But don't hold your breath for any of the righteously outraged commenters to acknowledge it.

[melm00se]

29. As a grad student/TA

ignoring the facts (evidenced by comments with nothing to back them up) would have immediately cost the student at least 1 - 1.5 grades (taking an A to a B or on a paper or essay.

[Devil Child]

31. Thank you for much needed facts involving the cases. Ruling seems appropriate to me

My guess if this post is even read, it will be given an appeal to emotion response.

9-0 ruling speaks for itself.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

32. Facts plus knowledge of legal standards have a way of quelling quick outrage. Thanks.

[Jay25]

14. A boon for keeping police brutality in place, and certain people in check.

American civil rights, a privilege, no longer a right.

[TeamProg]

16. How LONG has the term "POLICE BRUTALITY" been around?

Since the late 1800's !!

SCOTUS STILL can't get it right.

[StClone]

18. Knock, knock

Who's there!?

Cops!

What do you want with us we are just a bunch of honest Supreme Court Justices!

We just want to bust some heads!!!

Why on earth would you want to harm us?!

Too late we're coming in to smack you around because you said we could!

[greenjar_01]

20. Unqualified impunity

[ck4829]

25. I think the issue of "qualified immunity" needs to be brought up before international organizations

Now obviously, they can't do all that much. But it is an issue of corruption and power going too far.

Something for groups like Freedom House to consider.

[Calista241]

26. You do realize that in much / most of the world, the police are orders of magnitude

more corrupt, more violent, less motivated, and less reliable than they are here.

Even in countries like France, the police are horribly violent. It doesn't get the same coverage as it does here, but if you're an ethnic minority in France, you better be prepared for a beat down by the police. And don't even think to look at police forces in India, China, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Czechoslovakia, or almost any other South American, Eastern European, or Middle Eastern country.

There are maybe 10 countries in the world that have police forces, policies and performance better than ours. The UK, Germany, Austria, Spain, South Korea, Japan to name just a few. And it's not like those forces are perfect, as they often have glaring and pervasive problems that need to be fixed.

[ck4829]

27. OK... All the more reason to do it then

If the response is "Other countries are even worse", then that's definitely not a good sign.

[DallasNE]

30. Define "clear"

That is clearly unclear.

[dchill]

33. Power requires CONTROL.