Qualified immunity is a defense against standing in a civil trial, normally against police
Download 0.87 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Accidental shootings not protected
- Deliberate shootings under no threat not protected
NegativeHarms AnswersDefense of Status QuoWhen the police abuse their power, the courts will not find they have QIEldridge, 2014, Why SCOTUS Qualified Immunity decision is huge f or cops, https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/6918062-Why-SCOTUS-qualified-immunity-decision-is-huge-for-cops/ DOA: 10-1-16 Joanne Eldridge has more than twenty years' experience as a government attorney and advocate. She served on active duty with the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Corps for over ten years and has extensive experience in criminal and Constitutional law in both federal and state court. She is a graduate of Boston College and the George Washington University Law School and holds a Master of Laws degree in military law. She has been admitted to practice before the Maryland Court of Appeals, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. She is currently practicing law in northern Virginia. Every use of deadly force by the police is analyzed based on the actual circumstances. The Sixth Circuit in Plumhofffound that the officers’ use of deadly force was not reasonable against a “fleeing vehicle [that] was essentially stopped and surrounded by police officers and police cars” especially when the police were aware that there was a passenger in the suspect car, thus “doubling the risk of death.” The appeals court thus distinguished the result in Scott, where the police used a vehicle to end the chase, and disapproved the police use of shots fired at close range under these specific circumstances. As the Court noted, “the devil is in the details.” Perhaps the Supreme Court’s review of the police videos will lead them to a different conclusion. Accidental shootings not protectedACLU Of Massachusetts, 2016, February 21, Federal appeals court’s ruling put a dent in police officers “qualified immunity” defense, https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/federal-appeals-courts-ruling-put-dent-police-officers-qualified-immunity-defense A police officer is not immune from accountability after he points a gun at a non-threatening person, with his finger on the trigger and the safety off, and accidentally fires. So ruled the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston last week, in a case that has far-reaching implications for public safety and police accountability. The lawsuit at issue stems from the 2011 Framingham, Massachusetts, SWAT police killing of 68-year-old African-American grandfather Eurie Stamps. In the early morning hours of January 5, 2011, the Framingham SWAT team raided Mr. Stamps’ home with a search warrant because they suspected his stepson of selling drugs there. Mr. Stamps, whom officers knew would be in the home and posed no known threat, ended up dead. When the Framingham SWAT team entered his home, Mr. Stamps complied with the officers’ demands. He was lying on his stomach, his hands above his head, when officer Duncan accidentally fired his weapon, killing the beloved grandfather. The case highlights the danger of using SWAT teams to conduct searches in routine drug cases — a nationwide problem that disproportionately impacts Black and Brown Americans. In the deadly raid on Mr. Stamps’ home, the SWAT team entered unannounced in the middle of the night, threw a bomb into the home, and broke the door open with a battering ram before charging in, dressed like warriors. In these night-raids, when adrenaline is pumping and officers are decked out in combat gear and carrying powerful weaponry, tragic accidents can happen. But even though Duncan fired accidentally, he isn’t immune from Mr. Stamps’ family’s federal lawsuit, which alleges that the officer’s conduct violated Mr. Stamps’ Fourth Amendment rights. The lawsuit seeks damages from both Officer Duncan and the Town of Framingham — and thanks to last week’s ruling, it will move forward. A jury will now decide whether Paul Duncan’s decisions to take his weapon off safety, place his finger on the trigger, and point it at a compliant Mr. Stamps violated Stamps’ Fourth Amendment rights. As the ACLU of Massachusetts argued in a friend of the court brief to the First Circuit, "[S]hielding officers from liability for unreasonable actions that cause accidental deaths would acutely threaten the communities that are most frequently subject to militarized police raids and other police actions. Raids like the one that resulted in Stamps’s death increasingly bring military-style equipment and tactics into the homes of ordinary Americans. The risks endemic to these raids are borne especially by people of color, including Stamps himself, and it is these communities who will suffer the consequences [if the court agrees with the defendents]." Thankfully, the First Circuit agreed. Last week’s ruling is a huge victory for the Stamps family, but it has implications that go far beyond the tragic circumstances of Mr. Eurie Stamps and his surviving loved ones. Thanks to this important decision, police officers in the First Circuit — an area encompassing the districts of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island — cannot recklessly point their weapons at nonthreatening people and then claim immunity after they kill them, even if the killing is accidental. Deliberate shootings under no threat not protectedGeorgia Law Review, February 18, Eleventh circuit finds police officer not entitled to qualified immunity in shooting death, http://georgialawreview.org/eleventh-circuit-finds-police-officer-not-entitled-to-qualified-immunity-in-shooting-death/ DOA: 10-2-16 In Perez v. Suszczynski, No. 14–13619, 2016 WL 125269 (11th Cir. Jan. 12, 2016), the Eleventh Circuit upheld denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion claiming qualified immunity in connection with a shooting death. Officers responded early one morning to an altercation between two women at a sports bar. Upon arrival, the officers ordered everyone in the parking lot of the bar onto the ground. The decedent, Victor Arango, laid down on his stomach as ordered, offered no resistance, with his hands behind his back. After a deputy removed a handgun from Arango’s waistband, defendant officer, Michael Suszczynski, shot Arango in the back, execution-style. Arango’s estate (Plaintiff) sued the officer for use of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds that he enjoyed qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed. The Eleventh Circuit first noted that because defendant was acting in a discretionary capacity in attempting to restrain the decedent, he could be entitled to qualified immunity. In order to survive summary judgment, Plaintiff had to establish Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity by showing: 1) Defendant violated a constitutional right of the decedent and 2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident. The court first found that Defendant had violated the decedent’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. An officer may only use deadly force when the officer: 1) has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious harm; 2) reasonably believes deadly force is necessary; and 3) has warned the suspect, if feasible, about possible use of deadly force. The court determined that because the decedent was compliant, laying prostrate, and unresisting, Defendant did not have probable cause to believe the decedent posed a threat of serious harm, nor did Defendant have a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. Moreover, there was no indication that Defendant warned the decedent about the potential use of deadly force. The court further found that the constitutional right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time of the incident. The court pointed to both Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent holding that the use of deadly force against a non-resisting suspect who posed no danger violated the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court went even further and stated that even in the absence of such precedent, the officer’s conduct was so “inherently violative” of the Fourth Amendment that any reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unlawful. As such, Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 0.87 Mb. Share with your friends:
|