Cortesluna suggests that law enforcement officers will get a free ride until the Supreme Court itself weighs in to say which precise conduct is out of bounds. The unsigned opinion in Rivas-Vellegas v.
Courts have routinely pointed to minor factual differences - for example, whether the victim was lying down or sitting upright - in holding that a prior case was too dissimilar to put the officers on notice that they were acting unconstitutionally.īut after last week’s rulings, without noted dissents, the bar to relief may be so high that virtually no one can clear it. In both cases, the court ruled for the police officers.Įven before last week, “clearly established” was a high bar for victims to overcome because it required that there be a prior case, either from the Supreme Court or the appellate court in the same jurisdiction, involving an almost identical set of facts. A court also must find that the right the officer violated was “clearly established” at the time.
Under the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity doctrine, it is not enough to show that an officer acted unlawfully to lose that protection. Qualified immunity protects officers from having to pay monetary damages when they violate people’s rights. The question in both cases was whether officers should get qualified immunity in cases in which they were said to have used excessive force. Now legislators must step up and do what the justices won’t. With this latest move, the Supreme Court has abdicated its responsibility to regulate police behavior. Taken together, they create an almost insurmountable barrier to holding police officers responsible for violating people’s constitutional rights.
The two cases, part of the court’s so-called shadow docket, were decided without public briefing or argument. Last week, in two unsigned opinions, the Supreme Court showed its disdain for police reform.
0 kommentar(er)
