Court rejects qualified immunity for officer who arrested man with valid carry permit

[KLB]

Well actually you'd be surprised how far you can get on a modern passenger airline with just a phillips screwdriver.

I imagine. I would look after that. The only thing I really saw I could go after with pliers was the nuts holding the seats to the floor. I'm sure THAT wouldn't get any attention.

 

[Leo]

I had a pair of 5" pliers confiscated at BWI in 2002. I was told I could take the plane apart with them.

You should have said that you needed them to disarm the bomb, just like 007. I am sure some supervisor would shortly be helping you. (was it the red wire or the black one, I forget)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Here's the thing: The knives weren't what the issue was on 9/11. It was the tactics. Prior to 9/11, hijackings were a way to *divert* a flight, not to *crash* a flight. Passengers and flight crews both had the expectation that to cooperate with hijackers as the safest option. They were generally political stunts or people trying to go places they couldn't otherwise go. Very very few people died as a result of hijacking, and that was even more true for domestic flights. So people went along with the hijackers demands.

Now if you stood up in an airplane with a 4" knife and announced a hijacking, passengers and flight crew are not going to cooperate. Hell, they have fist fights over a second round of sodas now. You'll be torn apart like the slow guy in a zombie movie. The cockpit is locked, you aren't getting in there to take over the plane.

I've been on a flight were a passenger attempted to tamper with the plane. It resulted in both crew and passengers beating the tar out of them and then cocooning them in duct tape until they could be turned over to authorities.

 

[ECS686]

Just skimming the article this decision is nothing new How Qualified Immunity or being under "scope of employment" works is often misunderstood.

QI only covers an LEO on a civil lawsuit if he/she followed department policy and the law in a case where a civil lawsuit against them happens.

Say a lawsuit is filed and he/she is found to have followed policy but that agencies policy is wrong then the department writes the check and changes that policy.

If he/she did not follow policy OR the law then no QI and the individual not the department can be responsible to write checks.

I'd presume this LEO knows he screwed the pooch and going the QI route was just an attempt to get out of his mess.

 

[jsharmon7]

Law Enforcement Officers, by definition, are there to enforce the laws...and apprehend law-breakers!
My experience with many LEO's is that most don't truly know or properly understand the laws they're supposed to be enforcing...whether they agree with them or not...and many go on just opinion or supposition of what the law(s) should be...both of which can be worse than the actual law(s) they are supposed to be enforcing.
As a former volunteer EMT (24 years) state, county, and local law enforcement would occasionally stop by the firehouse and, during discussions, if you ask the same question regarding the same law to three (3) different officers, typically you would get 2-3 different responses on how it should be enforced or responded to (aka 'handled').
The discrepancies between different law enforcement departments, the amount of actual education or training they receive, their actual experience (time on the job), etc. all shows up on the street where one officer handles in one way (hopefully maturely) and another handles it completely different (often immaturely).
When it comes to traffic stops (as an example) I typically let them do their thing (respectfully) and the, at some point (if I have a question or concern) will ask, 'Sir (or Ma'am), may I ask a question?' When they say 'Yes!' my question then becomes a discussion rather than an argument or escalation of the situation!

Remember:
An argument is used to determine 'who' is right!
A discussion is used to determine 'what' is right!

Despite what some say, LE can be complicated. There is the Constitution, SCOTUS, and various Courts of Appeal. Then you have state laws, state Supreme Court, state appeals court, county prosecutors, and department policy. All of those have direct impact on how the law is applied. A cop could read and memorize every state law and still screw things up because it’s not about knowing the law as much as it’s knowing how it’s applied. One county may do something completely differently than the next one over. I heard a judge say you could put a lawyer in the backseat of a police car and they’d still get it wrong. None of that is meant to excuse this officer, but maybe shed a little light onto why some cops don’t fully understand every aspect of the law. Written law is black and white, but application is definitely not.

 

[rooster]

QI only covers an LEO on a civil lawsuit if he/she followed department policy and the law in a case where a civil lawsuit against them happens.

Not a lawyer but Qualified immunity doesn’t have a thing to do with department policy. If the department policy of small town indiana was to stop any citizen with a gun and detain them would that make it ok? Because it’s policy?

from the feds themselves

Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity when their actions do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The objective reasonableness test determines the entitlement.

https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIXQualifiedImmunity.pdf

 

[KellyinAvon]

Despite what some say, LE can be complicated. There is the Constitution, SCOTUS, and various Courts of Appeal. Then you have state laws, state Supreme Court, state appeals court, county prosecutors, and department policy. All of those have direct impact on how the law is applied. A cop could read and memorize every state law and still screw things up because it’s not about knowing the law as much as it’s knowing how it’s applied. One county may do something completely differently than the next one over. I heard a judge say you could put a lawyer in the backseat of a police car and they’d still get it wrong. None of that is meant to excuse this officer, but maybe shed a little light onto why some cops don’t fully understand every aspect of the law. Written law is black and white, but application is definitely not.

I've always viewed rank and file LEOs as very similar to Enlisted Military in many ways. Holding their own to high standards is one of the similarities. I don't see the wagons being circled for this one, even in Connecticut.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just skimming the article this decision is nothing new How Qualified Immunity or being under "scope of employment" works is often misunderstood.

QI only covers an LEO on a civil lawsuit if he/she followed department policy and the law in a case where a civil lawsuit against them happens.

I think you're thinking of Respondeat Superior.

QI hinges on if the the case law is not clearly established on the issue and is independent from departmental policy.

 

[actaeon277]

Here's the thing: The knives weren't what the issue was on 9/11. It was the tactics. Prior to 9/11, hijackings were a way to *divert* a flight, not to *crash* a flight. Passengers and flight crews both had the expectation that to cooperate with hijackers as the safest option. They were generally political stunts or people trying to go places they couldn't otherwise go. Very very few people died as a result of hijacking, and that was even more true for domestic flights. So people went along with the hijackers demands.

Now if you stood up in an airplane with a 4" knife and announced a hijacking, passengers and flight crew are not going to cooperate. Hell, they have fist fights over a second round of sodas now. You'll be torn apart like the slow guy in a zombie movie. The cockpit is locked, you aren't getting in there to take over the plane.

I've been on a flight were a passenger attempted to tamper with the plane. It resulted in both crew and passengers beating the tar out of them and then cocooning them in duct tape until they could be turned over to authorities.

I'd have been willing to take part in that beat down.

And about the 9/11, that's why the first two planes flew into the towers, cause they were taught to comply.
Then, the 3rd flight found out what was going to happen, so they resisted.
Unfortunately unsuccessfully

 

[ECS686]

Not a lawyer but Qualified immunity doesn’t have a thing to do with department policy. If the department policy of small town indiana was to stop any citizen with a gun and detain them would that make it ok? Because it’s policy?

from the feds themselves

Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity when their actions do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The objective reasonableness test determines the entitlement.

https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIXQualifiedImmunity.pdf

Actually it does. And theres a line. What QI does is protect the individual Officer if hes acting within department policy but then department policy is proven to be not in line with the arrested peraons rights. Any civil action (payout) would be the responsibility of the agency. Usually quietly out of court while that policy is changed.

And one could be arrested and a case of rights being violated os hard to prove. Examples, upon further review by a Prosecutor no charges are filed because the charge wasn't warrented, prosecutor didn't want to pursue a court fight, politics goes on and on. Happens more than you'd think.

 

[Amishman44]

Despite what some say, LE can be complicated. There is the Constitution, SCOTUS, and various Courts of Appeal. Then you have state laws, state Supreme Court, state appeals court, county prosecutors, and department policy. All of those have direct impact on how the law is applied. A cop could read and memorize every state law and still screw things up because it’s not about knowing the law as much as it’s knowing how it’s applied. One county may do something completely differently than the next one over. I heard a judge say you could put a lawyer in the backseat of a police car and they’d still get it wrong. None of that is meant to excuse this officer, but maybe shed a little light onto why some cops don’t fully understand every aspect of the law. Written law is black and white, but application is definitely not.

jsharmon7 - I completely concur with what you said as there are so many differences, interpretations, and issues at the 'management' level of law enforcement that many times, the front-line grunt (officer) has to figure it out for him/herself, and sometimes do so on the fly!
My concern is that many law enforcement officers know and understand the procedures of what they're expected to do quite well, to C-Y-A per say, but yet don't understand the very laws they're working to enforce...and that, in and of itself, can be a source of issues or confusion.
I'm not saying that law enforcement officers don't so a difficult job in, often, difficult circumstances, what I am saying is that many law enforcement officers could stand additional education as to the various laws themselves, that they are asked to enforce, giving them a better perspective or understanding, which can aid them in the process of properly applying the laws in the first place. Better educated / trained / developed / cross-trained an employee is, they better they are able to perform their particular job(s)!

 

[rugertoter]

Good! If you don't know the law, then how can you enforce it?

 

[manifest destiny]

From the article -

Finally, as a fail-safe, the officer claimed that he was entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government employees from any legal liability for violating someone's constitutional rights, so long as those rights were not “clearly established.”

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, which created qualified immunity nearly 40 years ago, determining whether a right is clearly established hinges on “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Constitutional rights aren't "clearly established" ??
The U.S. Supreme Court "created" ??
Geez.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

From the article -



Constitutional rights aren't "clearly established" ??
The U.S. Supreme Court "created" ??
Geez.

Some things are bright line rules, but some things either require interpretation (and that interpretation shifts) or courts invent new interpretations. You have the right to be free of unreasonable searches. At what point does a search become unreasonable? When is something a search? Reasonable minds can differ, and sometimes the courts scooch the line or the issue is one nobody ever thought of before.

Especially as technology advances, new questions pop up. The founding fathers were curiously silent on using infrared cameras to see heat signatures emanating from a roof, for example. The automobile created a ton of questions. The 4th amendment protects your "person, houses, papers, and effects." Is an email account hosted on a server you don't own a person, house, paper, or effect? When is a search of a server you don't own unreasonable?

Miranda rights were invented by SCOTUS whole cloth. There's nothing in the US Constitution that requires the police to be your civics teacher. But now it's a thing and that created a cascade of other decisions. When are you in custody? Do you have to be handcuffed? Do you have to be moved? Do you have to be in a police facility? Or just you can't leave? Is a traffic stop custody for the purposes of Miranda? What is interrogation? Is just asking for your name an interrogation? What about asking questions of a victim you don't believe?

Issues like these are argued in front of various courts and the courts often disagree with each other. QI protects the officer from having to guess what the next hair that will be split is and how the courts will eventually decide.

 

[Amishman44]

Good! If you don't know the law, then how can you enforce it?

Kinda my point...several times I've seen or hear officers state, when responding to a question, 'I would do this...' or 'I think it should be done this way'...meaning, they're often left responding with their own interpretation or their own opinion of a law in a subjective manner, rather than a unified, objective application of the law, as it's designed to be applied or implemented!

On a side note, I've actually been in a court room and pulled out a copy of a law, or actually the applicable portion thereof, and read it aloud to a judge, who then disregarded it and applied his own interpretation of the outcome! When I questioned him later, he got irritated and actually admitted that he made a choice that CYA'd his own butt rather than applied the law correctly as it was both written and intended! It's not just law enforcement officers...and, typically, I try to give law enforcement officers the benefit of the doubt, with consideration for not knowing what they've been through or how their day's been going...
But a judge...that's irritating!!!

 

[DragonGunner]

So do I understand that this was just a ruling so the cop can know be sued? Or is nothing going to happen here.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So do I understand that this was just a ruling so the cop can know be sued? Or is nothing going to happen here.

Yes, now a civil rights suit can go forward.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Yes, now a civil rights suit can go forward.

How do you feel about this particular instance? I’m not sure how I feel about qualified immunity. I think it’s a good thing overall, but it has its issues. You always give such well thought out opinions, and make me think about different perspectives I’ve never considered, so would love to hear your thoughts on it.


I also understand if you’d rather not discuss your views on it. Some people foam at the mouth over anything involving LEO, so if you’d rather not go down that wormhole I get it. Not asking you to subject yourself to anything you don’t want, just curious how someone in your line of work with your knowledge and respected views feel about it.