Social Qualified Immunity and Excessive Force

[nhbbear]

QI is also overly protective of police in other instances,. For instance courts, including the 9th District, have ruled that cops do not violate a defendants rights if they steal money or other valuable items while conducting a search.

That is surprising because the ninth circuit doesn’t much like police. But that’s ridiculous. Maybe they look at it like a crime instead of a violation?

 

[Sinister]

thanks. You ever see the women with the southern accent? I saw her in a south carolina airport. It was good. Not see too many more of her though.

Yes I have. Here's a recent case of what I was talking about on Lackluster. Cops so ignorant they're doing property enforcement against a business owner, and end up arresting him because he spoke in a way they didnt like:



He even tries to give them sh*t they're not entitled to just to avoid the arrest, and bend the knee to them, and they use that opportunity to humiliate him.

 

[Cyrano200]

I think we need to first have to understand what Qualified Immunity is before we debate it's application.
From Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
“Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” See: Pearson v. Callahan.
Most of the cases you guys are talking about are instances when they were not "performing their duties reasonably." The way the courts have applied the standard is another area of debate, but as a concept QI has merit.
Execution needs work.

 

[Phisher]

Colorado passed a law bypassing qualified immunity that makes it easy to sue cops in state courts.

This is one of the first major decisions in the wake of the new law.

SWAT cops destroyed this elderly woman's house after using GPS data from Find My Phone as their only lead to find a stolen truck. Despite the fact that the GPS data is totally unreliable and that there was no truck on her property, they decided ransack her entire home while executing the search warrant.

She was awarded $3.76 million against the supervisors who ordered the raid. They're personally liable up to $50,000 each. The rest is still indemnified by the taxpayer.






Without QI, she would've had a hard time suing because not determining the proper address before executing a raid hasn't been established as "unreasonable" behavior by the federal courts.

Here is an almost identical case where the victim couldn't sue because the cops were protected by QI.

Cop Who Wrongly Led No-Knock Raid Against 78-Year-Old Grandfather Can’t Be Sued, Court Rules

Thanks to qualified immunity, police who raid the wrong home and handcuff the wrong person at gunpoint can’t be held accountable.

www.forbes.com

 

[Phisher]

Yes I have. Here's a recent case of what I was talking about on Lackluster. Cops so ignorant they're doing property enforcement against a business owner, and end up arresting him because he spoke in a way they didnt like:



He even tries to give them sh*t they're not entitled to just to avoid the arrest, and bend the knee to them, and they use that opportunity to humiliate him.

The fact that one of the cops involved in this nonsense is now a chief in another department would be hilarious if it weren't so disgusting.

 

[woodguyatl]

That is surprising because the ninth circuit doesn’t much like police. But that’s ridiculous. Maybe they look at it like a crime instead of a violation?

Two guys were arrested and assets such as cash and collectable coins were taken as evidence. Not everything that was taken was logged as evidence. No charges were pressed and only some of thew assets were returned. The court rules that the police do not violate any rights when they steal property as long as they have a warrant.

Loading…

www.findlaw.com

According to the Ninth Circuit, it is not a constitutional violation to unlawfully seize $225k when the stolen property is covered by warrant. As such, officers who steal from suspects are still accorded qualified immunity for that theft – provided that the officers only steal certain property a certain way.


The case stems from an investigation into illegal gambling machines in Fresno, California. The plaintiffs in Jessop v. City of Fresno allege the officers seized $275,000 in cash and property during their investigation but listed only $50,000 in the inventory sheet. The $225,000 allegedly went into the officer’s voluminous pockets.


The district court judge dismissed the case on summary judgment, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs, who ran coin-operated arcade games, were never charged with a crime. One of the police officers, however, was later arrested on a federal bribery charge for an unrelated incident and is no longer a Fresno officer.

A Refresher on Qualified Immunity​

An officer gets immunity from civil liability when acting “under color of law,” unless that conduct violates a “clearly established” constitutional right. An officer’s unethical conduct – or even malicious conduct – does not provide an exception from qualified immunity. The standard is whether a reasonable officer would have prior knowledge that the behavior is a constitutional violation, or that the violation is so obvious as to not require precedent.


Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., writing for the unanimous panel, noted that it could be “rather quickly and easily decide[d] that there was no violation of clearly established law” in this case. The majority also found that theft of property isn’t obviously an unreasonable seizure.

Overlooked Precedent​

The decision is noteworthy on the merits, but there’s more. In March, when the panel first issued its opinion, the court wrote that this was a matter of first impression for the Ninth Circuit.


The panel maintained that position in its September superseding opinion. However, in 2017, the Ninth Circuit decided Brewster v. Beck, which held that the refusal to release an impounded vehicle after the car owner appeared with a valid driver’s license and proof of ownership violated the owner’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit, in Brewster, wrote that ““[t]he Fourth Amendment doesn’t become irrelevant once an initial seizure has run its course.”


Brewster wasn’t mentioned in the court’s March decision. The Ninth Circuit therefore issued the September opinion to clarify the record. However, despite previous case law appearing to be on point, the Ninth Circuit argued that:

. . . while Brewster involved the seizure of property pursuant to an exception to the warrant requirement . . . the City Officers seized Appellants’ property pursuant to a warrant that authorized the seizure of the items allegedly stolen.

The panel, then, held that so long as the theft included property named in the warrant, there was no constitutional violation. A reasonable officer in the Ninth Circuit, therefore, can appear to note that it is a constitutional violation to steal property not named in a warrant, or to steal property seized when it is excepted from warrant, but not to steal property named in the warrant.


Importantly, the alleged theft in Jessop occurred before the Ninth Circuit issued Brewster, so the court could have used these grounds to put officers on notice moving forward. However, Judge Smith wrote a specially concurring opinion arguing that Brewster appears to split from other jurisdictions on the issue of whether a seizure ends after the initial taking of the property. The panel did not find the seizure to be grounds for waiving qualified immunity.

Appeals and Civil Forfeiture​

To date, only the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has held that theft of property named in a search warrant constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.


The plaintiffs have appealed to have the case reheard en banc, as well as the Supreme Court. While SCOTUS has greatly expanded and protected the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity, many members of the current court have also expressed dismay at the current state of civil forfeiture at both state and federal levels. Last February, the justices were unanimous in limiting state law enforcement’s power to seize assets.

 

[DoctorTaco]

I hear people who are against qualified immunity bring up cops needing to have insurance like doctors in the event they fuck up and are liable for a lawsuit. Makes sense to me honestly.

And in regards to the good cops and bad cops thing, I had a 10 year vet of the force tell me “you can be the kind of cop that cops or you can be the kind of cop that people like but you can’t be both.” Also makes sense honestly

 

[woodguyatl]

I hear people who are against qualified immunity bring up cops needing to have insurance like doctors in the event they fuck up and are liable for a lawsuit. Makes sense to me honestly.

And in regards to the good cops and bad cops thing, I had a 10 year vet of the force tell me “you can be the kind of cop that cops or you can be the kind of cop that people like but you can’t be both.” Also makes sense honestly

Sure, but you can be the kind of cop that cops without violating the constitutional rights of other people.

 

[BIKES!]

Qualified Immunity is paramount for cops. Immunity doctrines that protect Judges who release criminals like the plague of Biden Bot leftists releasing criminals to terrorize citizens.

It's time to hold judges and DAs accountable for murder. Like this case that happens everyday.

Illinois Parole Board Members Resign After Felon Allegedly Kills Ex-Girlfriend's Son Hours After Release

Two members of the Illinois Prisoner Review board have stepped down after releasing a man who allegedly stabbed his ex-girlfriend's son.

www.breitbart.com

Sadly Democrats are racist and hate PoC.

 

[Phisher]

Appeals and Civil Forfeiture​

To date, only the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has held that theft of property named in a search warrant constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The fact that the opinion was unpublished means that it can't be cited as precedent strip officers of QI in the circuit, which means that cops can't be sued for theft named in search warrants anywhere in the US.

 

[nhbbear]

I hear people who are against qualified immunity bring up cops needing to have insurance like doctors in the event they fuck up and are liable for a lawsuit. Makes sense to me honestly.

And in regards to the good cops and bad cops thing, I had a 10 year vet of the force tell me “you can be the kind of cop that cops or you can be the kind of cop that people like but you can’t be both.” Also makes sense honestly

The insurance is a tough issue because it would likely cost hundreds per month and on a 40-50k salary, that’s ridiculous. I just found out that if I had not retired, I would have been making 30k more than I was when I retired. They got a couple big raises and good for them, but most departments do not make much money.

And as for the second part, I would say there is truth to that. I was aggressive my first six or seven years and after I had kids, I softened up a shit ton. I tried to be officer friendly but so many people try to take advantage of that. So it’s a balancing act. I will say this-the tougher the area the tougher the cops have to be or they are run over.

 

[nhbbear]

Two guys were arrested and assets such as cash and collectable coins were taken as evidence. Not everything that was taken was logged as evidence. No charges were pressed and only some of thew assets were returned. The court rules that the police do not violate any rights when they steal property as long as they have a warrant.

Loading…

www.findlaw.com

According to the Ninth Circuit, it is not a constitutional violation to unlawfully seize $225k when the stolen property is covered by warrant. As such, officers who steal from suspects are still accorded qualified immunity for that theft – provided that the officers only steal certain property a certain way.


The case stems from an investigation into illegal gambling machines in Fresno, California. The plaintiffs in Jessop v. City of Fresno allege the officers seized $275,000 in cash and property during their investigation but listed only $50,000 in the inventory sheet. The $225,000 allegedly went into the officer’s voluminous pockets.


The district court judge dismissed the case on summary judgment, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs, who ran coin-operated arcade games, were never charged with a crime. One of the police officers, however, was later arrested on a federal bribery charge for an unrelated incident and is no longer a Fresno officer.

A Refresher on Qualified Immunity​

An officer gets immunity from civil liability when acting “under color of law,” unless that conduct violates a “clearly established” constitutional right. An officer’s unethical conduct – or even malicious conduct – does not provide an exception from qualified immunity. The standard is whether a reasonable officer would have prior knowledge that the behavior is a constitutional violation, or that the violation is so obvious as to not require precedent.


Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., writing for the unanimous panel, noted that it could be “rather quickly and easily decide[d] that there was no violation of clearly established law” in this case. The majority also found that theft of property isn’t obviously an unreasonable seizure.

Overlooked Precedent​

The decision is noteworthy on the merits, but there’s more. In March, when the panel first issued its opinion, the court wrote that this was a matter of first impression for the Ninth Circuit.


The panel maintained that position in its September superseding opinion. However, in 2017, the Ninth Circuit decided Brewster v. Beck, which held that the refusal to release an impounded vehicle after the car owner appeared with a valid driver’s license and proof of ownership violated the owner’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit, in Brewster, wrote that ““[t]he Fourth Amendment doesn’t become irrelevant once an initial seizure has run its course.”


Brewster wasn’t mentioned in the court’s March decision. The Ninth Circuit therefore issued the September opinion to clarify the record. However, despite previous case law appearing to be on point, the Ninth Circuit argued that:




The panel, then, held that so long as the theft included property named in the warrant, there was no constitutional violation. A reasonable officer in the Ninth Circuit, therefore, can appear to note that it is a constitutional violation to steal property not named in a warrant, or to steal property seized when it is excepted from warrant, but not to steal property named in the warrant.


Importantly, the alleged theft in Jessop occurred before the Ninth Circuit issued Brewster, so the court could have used these grounds to put officers on notice moving forward. However, Judge Smith wrote a specially concurring opinion arguing that Brewster appears to split from other jurisdictions on the issue of whether a seizure ends after the initial taking of the property. The panel did not find the seizure to be grounds for waiving qualified immunity.

Appeals and Civil Forfeiture​

To date, only the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has held that theft of property named in a search warrant constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.


The plaintiffs have appealed to have the case reheard en banc, as well as the Supreme Court. While SCOTUS has greatly expanded and protected the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity, many members of the current court have also expressed dismay at the current state of civil forfeiture at both state and federal levels. Last February, the justices were unanimous in limiting state law enforcement’s power to seize assets.

It’s fucked up. No denying that

 

[the ambush]

A police officer should be comfortable with physical force/restraining and using their hands/limbs. This would decrease the number of lethal force incidents involving officers shooting unarmed subjects. Too many incidents when an officer goes straight to lethal force when they did not have to

 

[the ambush]

Sure, but you can be the kind of cop that cops without violating the constitutional rights of other people.

There are certain situations when I understand in the encounter why the officer uses an intermediate weapon like a taser or a baton. They could feel butterflies because they are outnumbered and inadvertently injure a person, that's reality and understandable. What bothers me is how many officer videos you find when they go straight to lethal force and shoot a person who has no weapon.

 

[oldshadow]

So cops should have to get their own insurance, like doctors?

So they need to get paid like doctors. Yea that will work put, won't it.

Do away with QI and the cops can get sued for any bullshit reason and have to pay for their defense and any settlement. How are you going to get anyone to be a cop. Look at the problem getting people now. You will end up with almost no cops and any you do have will do nothing for fear of being sued.

QI needs some work as does getting bad cops fired and never to be hired by any department. That's where there needs to be changes.

 

[gatchaman]

So cops should have to get their own insurance, like doctors?

So they need to get paid like doctors. Yea that will work put, won't it.

Do away with QI and the cops can get sued for any bullshit reason and have to pay for their defense and any settlement. How are you going to get anyone to be a cop. Look at the problem getting people now. You will end up with almost no cops and any you do have will do nothing for fear of being sued.

QI needs some work as does getting bad cops fired and never to be hired by any department. That's where there needs to be changes.

Nurses (lower paid) also must have liability insurance.

The cost for doctors is as low as a couple of grand per year, and the average cost of insurance is usually reimbursed by the employer.

The insurance company will provide a lawyer for free because it has a vested interest in winning the case.

Because the police officer has a vested interest in maintaining his reputation and low premiums, and because he has more say in whether to fight or settle, there is likely to be more spirited defense of police reputation in the courtroom, which may also be viewed by the public and influence its opinion of policing fairness.

 

[jk7707]

There should be statutes where police who violate the law on duty receive double the sentence of the general public, whether they're committing the crime or protecting the other officers who did.

 

[oldshadow]

Nurses (lower paid) also must have liability insurance.

The cost for doctors is as low as a couple of grand per year, and the average cost of insurance is usually reimbursed by the employer.

The insurance company will provide a lawyer for free because it has a vested interest in winning the case.

Because the police officer has a vested interest in maintaining his reputation and low premiums, and because he has more say in whether to fight or settle, there is likely to be more spirited defense of police reputation in the courtroom, which may also be viewed by the public and influence its opinion of policing fairness.

First the insurance for a cop is going to be higher for a cop then a doctor. They will be armed going into situations where violence is most likely.

I agree that Cops that were forced to have and deal with any law suit are going to be very careful of doing anything. The best way is to not do anything that could result in a law suit. And now because everyone wants to play the suit lottery that means what few cops you get will do little or nothing.
I don't think anyone supporting this has thought about the real result.

 

[Scrody]

Police kill innocent people constantly. Kick in the wrong address constantly. Illegally arrest innocent people over ego BS constantly.

Why are soldiers held to such high standards at war, but cops can kill indiscriminately?

Soldiers don't operate alone in war? They're way more heavily armed? If cops rolled around 12-30 deep with .50 cals mounted on their squad cars, I could see that argument.

And lol at soldiers being held to a higher standard. If you think cops have killed more people on accident than soldiers, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[gatchaman]

First the insurance for a cop is going to be higher for a cop then a doctor. They will be armed going into situations where violence is most likely.

I agree that Cops that were forced to have and deal with any law suit are going to be very careful of doing anything. The best way is to not do anything that could result in a law suit. And now because everyone wants to play the suit lottery that means what few cops you get will do little or nothing.
I don't think anyone supporting this has thought about the real result.

Surgeons do multiple surgeries per day. You bleed out all the same whether a major artery is severed by a scalpel or a bullet.

It is an expected outcome for a surgeon that he will be sued during his career, and yet he still does his job.