17 ms·

Supreme Court rejects man’s bid to sue police over arrest for Facebook parody

318 points by heavyset_go 4y ago

eckesicle 4y ago
> The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling in April that "the officers reasonably believed they were acting within the law" even if his Facebook page was obviously a parody. So police officers do not have to follow the law? They just have to believe that they are doing it?
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  A step in the right direction surely? After all it seems from reading the news that previously they didn't even believe they were following the law! :-)
- rnk 4y ago
  This is exactly right. And even in many many cases where they have been shown to know they were actually violating it they have immunity too.
  - eYrKEC2 4y ago
    It's better than that. They can even NOT BE A POLICE OFFICER, then act like a police officer, and then get qualified immunity. https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-case-of-government-engineer-who-acted-like-a-police-officer-got-qualified-immunity-anyway/ https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-c... Out. Of. Control.
    - rnk 4y ago
      Okay, that's absurd even to cynical me. Pretend to be a cop and have qualified immunity?
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        Does this mean I get qualified immunity too? I'm not pretending to be a cop but I think I should get it. This court will probably agree with me. Maybe all Americans should have qualified immunity!
        rnk 4y ago
        [flagged]
        weard_beard 4y ago
        Actually you need to be a government employee too.
    - corndoge 4y ago
      I don't see anything in this article that indicates that the government official in question received qualified immunity because they acted like a police officer. It seems they already had it as part of their own job. Correct if wrong.
      - pavon 4y ago
        That is correct, but qualified immunity is supposed to apply to government officials acting withing the scope of their official responsibilities. We emphasize that our decision applies only to suits for civil damages arising from actions within the scope of an official's duties and in "objective" good faith. - Harlow v. Fitzgerald [1] For the courts to uphold that impersonating a police officer (which is a felony!) is with the scope of an engineer's duties is absurd. [1]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/#F34 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/#F34
        zuminator 4y ago
        Part of that is that we're being misled by this whole 'impersonated a police officer' spin. He didn't pull the trucks over and say, "I'm a cop! You're under arrest." Rather, he claimed (and presumably believed) that he possessed, as a highway engineer, the authority to detain trucks that were violating a statute. Consider, in carrying out his official dutues, he has some degree of discretion in doing so. For example, some engineers might decide the best tool for their job that day is a slide rule. Others might decide on a given day to use an autoleveling level. And some, particularly Mr. Large, might decide on exercising the "detain trucks that are interfering with road work" provision. It turned out there was no such provision, and Large's job didn't have the authority to detain vehicles. But the absence of a statute specifically forbidding state employees (other than police officers) to detain trucks meant that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Keep in mind that QI doesn't mean that the injured party isn't entitled to damages at all, it just means they have to sue the state and not individual officers/officials. Of course, suing the state has its own hurdles. Some government bodies have very short statutes of limitations for filing lawsuits against them, and they must receive advance notice before the claim can even commence. And the claim might need to be filed in a special court. And the state may be protected from liability if it had no advance knowledge of a condition, or by a statute limiting the amount of damages.
    - cvoss 4y ago
      Why do you believe that qualified immunity only applies to police officers? I won't pretend to be an expert---today being the first day I've read about it---but, the very first Wikipedia article I read about the topic discusses qualified immunity w.r.t. "government officials", not "officers", which is a much bigger category of people. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
      - olliej 4y ago
        QI typically comes up in the context of police officers, so people don't understand the QI was extended from legislators, etc to police officers despite no legislative basis for such.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - runnerup 4y ago
        Teachers and school administrators also have qualified immmunity. They just tend to get fired when they egregiously screw up!
        kmonsen 4y ago
        I think this is part of it, police officers have the double-whammy of QI and the police unions protecting them from any consequence.
        runnerup 4y ago
        It's interesting that teacher unions dont seem to have the same degree of absolute power.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        People are scared of crime, they usually aren't scared of students (unless the students are black, they put cops in those schools to arrest kids ofc)
  - ElfinTrousers 4y ago
    Which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. I've thought for a long time that, if a cop is convicted as a crime, the simple fact that they are a cop should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing, and even more harshly if the offense had any hint of abuse of their legal authority.
    - thecrash 4y ago
      This makes sense in principle, but in practice police cannot both carefully adhere to the law and serve their intended function. Police are expected to be the security force of the powerful and influential against society's undesirables. If cops were required to strictly obey the law, they would be much less effective at this job. Most officers would understandably opt simply not to get involved in situations which might lead to someone's rights being violated. If the powerful want a force which is willing to knock heads for them, they need to assure that force it will not be held responsible for the mess it makes along the way.
      - BarryMilo 4y ago
        Ergo the difference between official and actual purpose
      - interactivecode 4y ago
        In civilized countries the police should have rules for how to act under certain conditions. For example how to de-escalate and then it’s allowed to drive through a red stoplight. In those countries if a police officer would drive through a red light without reason the should get a fine, suspension or other consequences. And I agree with an earlier commenter, since they should be extremely aware if the rules and boundaries, violations should be punished stricter.
      - magicalist 4y ago
        You say "but in practice..." but then proceed to handwave generalities. For instance, are you arguing we can preemptively say they don't have to follow any law on the off chance one of them might come up in the performance of their duties? It sounds an awful lot like you are, and there's essentially no "in practice" evidence to motivate that.
- schneems 4y ago
  > So police officers do not have to follow the law? Space_meme.jpg “never have” https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/what-is-qualified-immunity-for-police-and-why-are-there-calls-to-end-it/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/what-is-quali...
- ElfinTrousers 4y ago
  No, they just have to claim that they believe it. It's not like the judge can read their mind and prove they're lying. Another example of how, although small-scale corruption is rare in the US government (i.e. we don't have a culture where it's normal for ordinary folks to bribe cops or other officials), we have plenty of large-scale corruption baked right into the system. For further information, I refer you to the works of Messrs. E, Ren, and Cube, and Dr. Dre.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  It does not matter, police officers have qualified immunity in all cases except when they don't, and they don't only if there is already a legal precedent telling they don't. Yes, circular reasoning.
- __derek__ 4y ago
  It's not even that strong because of the "reasonably believed" bit: they just have to plausibly deny knowledge of precedent explicitly barring their (hyper-specific) action.
  - schoen 4y ago
    Could there be an impact from putting up some billboards about the legality of certain actions, where police officers would be likely to see them frequently?
    - ars 4y ago
      Interesting idea. Although the cops might claim they did not believe the billboards were accurate.
    - joelfried 4y ago
      I doubt it. There's too many ways for this not to work - the police testifies "I never saw that billboard". Even if they admit they saw it, so what? Anybody can say anything on a billboard, the police officer could say "Oh yeah, I saw it, but I have no idea if it's true" - and plausible deniability is sufficient as I understand it.
      - petsfed 4y ago
        "Oh yeah, I saw [the satirical facebook page about us], but I have no idea if its true" It's infuriating that this farce is what our legal system hinges on.
        rnk 4y ago
        You can even put it on their qualification tests so you have documentation that they heard something was illegal and it doesn't matter. For many things they are effectively immune to prosecution. Add on that most prosecutors don't want to go after cops because they won't cooperate in cases after that.
      - 4y ago
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Yes, correct. That's been the case for a while now and is part of the reason why they've gotten away with murder, theft etc even in circumstances where video evidence obviously implicates them. Policing as an institution in the US is incredibly rotten and backed up by the abuse of qualified immunity.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
  It's ludicrous that ignorance of the law excuses them from following it, when it famously doesn't excuse the rest of us.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    Yet another instance where the police demand to be held to lower standards than the rest of us little people, rather than higher standards.
- jackmott42 4y ago
  The citizens should revolt over a state of affairs like this.
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    In unrelated news, police forces across the country have been trained to view the public as enemies who might kill them at any time [see Dave Grossman], and supplied with alarming amounts of military / SWAT level equipment. Also wholly unrelated, districts have hired huge numbers of PR people to shine up their image; for example, 67 full time PR and propaganda people for the LA area alone - https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1484966547244433416 https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1484966547244433416
- cpncrunch 4y ago
  >even if his Facebook page was obviously a parody. Here is the page in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8h4PIC4HhI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8h4PIC4HhI It had the police department logo, with no mention that it was a parody. The post said people would be arrested if they went outside at certain times. I would like to think that most people would question and fact check clearly weird shit like this. But, as we now know, the vast majority of people do not fact check. They take dumb shit like this at face value, hook line and sinker.
  - humanistbot 4y ago
    Read the brief filed by The Onion. It is hilarious, but also a masterwork in arguing that parody only works by initially fooling people into believing it is real, which is illustrated by its own parodies of a legal brief. People have been trying to sue parody creators for not including a disclaimer since before the US existed, see Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. They cite ample precedents that US courts have consistently held that disclaimers are not needed to distinguish parody from sincere libel/slander for a "reasonable person," who precedent holds is not the average person or a "lowest-common denominator, but of reasonable intelligence and learning." https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
    - js2 4y ago
      Relevant TAL episode prologue: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/775/the-possum-experiment https://www.thisamericanlife.org/775/the-possum-experiment Lady puts up "Cat Found" posters around her L.A. neighborhood with pictures of a possum, as a stunt: https://hw4.thisamericanlife.org/sites/default/files/styles/portrait/public/episodes/images/cat-found-poster-jlw-3.jpg https://hw4.thisamericanlife.org/sites/default/files/styles/... Her voice mail explodes with callers from all over the country after the poster gets shared online. Hundreds of calls. She gets three types of messages, which she catalogued: 1. Those who didn't realize it was a joke or weren't sure and called to politely let her know she had found a possum, not a cat. About 70% of callers. 2. Those who realized it was obviously a joke and called to tell her she had found their cat. About 20% of callers. 3. Those who didn't realize it was a joke and called to tell her how dumb she was. She got some really mean messages. About 10% of callers.
- ajross 4y ago
  Stated more correctly: police officers cannot be found personally liable in civil court for breaking the law. They can be prosecuted by the state for crimes they commit, and the agencies that employ them can be sued for damages. But no, in practice you can't personally sue a cop in civil court in the United States for anything that can be even vaguely understood as police work, no matter how terrible an abuse it is.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Actually, there is at least one case showing you can't sue a government employee of any kind for anything that can even be vaguely understood as police work, no matter how terrible an abuse it is. The case was about a government engineer who legally acted as a police officer, but still got QI in his capacity as a government engineer for it, and it is settled (SCOTUS declined to hear it).
    - anticensor 4y ago
      > SCOTUS declined to hear it That counts as case dismissed, not as settled.
- idontpost 4y ago
  [dead]
- 8note 4y ago
  The expectation is that they are held responsible by their employers.
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    Does the court honestly believe this expectation?
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    Which never happens unless it gets lots of attention. Good apples get punished if they speak up so the bad apples do what whatever they want.
- danShumway 4y ago
  Qualified immunity, a doctrine that I think was largely just wholesale invented by the Supreme Court out of nowhere because "it would be bad if this didn't exist." Left, right, center, whatever. Everyone should be on board with getting rid of it regardless of political affiliation, there are reasons for everyone to hate that qualified immunity for government workers/agents is a thing.
  - Madmallard 4y ago
    Qualified Immunity is a step toward tyranny
    - backtoyoujim 4y ago
      It is tyrannical, and it engenders American capitalism with neofeudalism with chivalry being replaced with QI.
    - ghoogl 4y ago
      [dead]
  - shrimpx 4y ago
    It maybe says that laws are too strict, since they can’t apply in “sticky but necessary” situations, so maybe we should delegislate down to the baseline level of QI.
    - zwkrt 4y ago
      Screw that. Unless I can refuse to be tried in a sticky but necessary situation, the cops don’t get that option.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    It's way worse than that. Qualified immunity arose out of Pierson v. Ray: > The case refers to the incident in Jackson, Mississippi where 15 Episcopal priests were arrested after entering the coffee shop at the local Trailways bus terminal. The group were part of 28 priests from Episcopal Society for Cultural and Racial Unity, ... > On September 13, 1961, a group of 15 including three black priests took taxis from Tougaloo into the nearby Jackson Trailways bus terminal to catch the bus to Chattanooga. When entering the coffee shop to have lunch before their departure, they were stopped by two policemen, Officers David Allison Nichols and Joseph David Griffith, who asked them to leave. After the priests refused to leave, Captain J. L. Ray arrested and jailed all 15 priests for breach of peace, using a now-repealed section of the Mississippi code § 2087.5 that "makes guilty of a misdemeanor anyone who congregates with others in a public place under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby, and refuses to move on when ordered to do so by a police officer." > The group included 35-year-old Reverend Robert L. Pierson, who was son-in-law to the Republican Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller. They were brought to trial before the local judge James Spencer who found them guilty of breach of peace and sentenced them to four months in jail and $200 fine. > Represented by Carl Rachlin, the chief legal counsel at Congress of Racial Equality, they sought damages in the Jackson district court before Judge Sidney Mize, alleging the police and the local judge had violated Title 42, Section 1983 of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act by false arrest and imprisonment for exercising their civil rights. However, the jury found in favor of the police who said they were trying to prevent imminent violence from a gathered crowd, contradicting the evidence of the priests. > On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the local judge was immune from liability for his decision. Although the appeal court found the Mississippi code unconstitutional, it found that "Mississippi law does not require police officers to predict at their peril which state laws are constitutional and which are not." [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray
- beardedwizard 4y ago
  Imagine you are operating with good intent, and are now personally liable for every call you make under duress trying to fight crime. Batman has to crack a few eggs. Nobody would want to be a cop without some form of protection, but having this protection covers the worst cops. A tough situation, but if we make police work unappealing, what will we achieve? Are there successful examples of this? It is also interesting that software engineering is one of the only engineering professions that has no industry regulation or personal accountability for negligence.
  - stonogo 4y ago
    Other professions have surety bonds and professional liability insurance. Right now if a cop does wrong the community pays. Rescinding qualified immunity and requiring sworn officers to personally bond and insure themselves would incentivise good behavior and appropriately redirect negative consequences to the actual problem sources.
  - babelfish 4y ago
    Do you think the officers in this case were actually trying to fight crime, or make a petty arrest to a local citizen for an activity protected by 1A?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - creato 4y ago
      There are two groups of officers described by the parent post: ones who try to fight crime, and "the worst cops". They aren't the same group. The challenge is how to protect the first group and not the second. Would you want to be a cop if every shitbag you arrest is going to sue you for some frivolous crap? You will lose some of those cases even if you are a saint of a police officer.
      - karmelapple 4y ago
        Have medical doctors already solved this through insurance? Not a fantastic solution, and it increases costs, but it does provide due process for people making claims, and allows a court to decide whether a doctor did something wrong. Apply the same to police.
- mtrower 4y ago
  Intent is a large part of law to begin with.
- vishnugupta 4y ago
  Yes. And obligatory advice, “Don’t talk to the police.” https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
- nxm 4y ago
  They do follow the law. Also the guys was arrested, and not criminally convicted. Police arrest criminals before they’re trialed all the time…e.g. someone arrested for murder or robbery is not guilty until a trial, yet he or she was still arrested
aqme28 4y ago
Love how the Roberts court treats corporate speech (absolute freedom) versus the speech of regular people.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  At stake is not the free speech, but the qualified immunity concept (something made up by SCOTUS 50-60 years ago).
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - aqme28 4y ago
    In this case it's both. Police are immune from violating your freedom of speech.
    - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
      Sure but the case in question brought to SCOTUS was QI alone. They can’t rule on whatever they want, only the cases they get appealed.
d23 4y ago
This is a small government, conservative supreme court?
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  If you think of the police as the executive arm of the judiciary, then you can understand why they would want to give them immunity from accountability for their actions. The courts have ruled that the police are no responsibility to protect the public which only leaves their ability to enforce some laws as their responsibility. Qualified immunity dates back about 60 years as far as I can tell and is a complete creation solely of the courts.
  - devnulll 4y ago
    Qualified Immunity could be easily fixed by law. That congress has been unwilling to pass such a law tells you that both sides support.
    - jasonlotito 4y ago
      The attempts to fix this has come from the left. That the defenders of this are center/right do not suggest "both sides support" this.
      - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
        Even in CA the legislature has done nothing to eliminate QI. That suggests it’s hardly opposed by the left.
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        People should stop treating California as the bastion of the Democrats, since it really isn't. There are 49 other states, many of them blue, that have none of the problems california has. California has been a state that struggles to govern for it's people since it was first created. It was a conservative stronghold for decades, and was no better under republicans. It seems more like there's something in the water, or rather that californian corporate interests have always been above the people there. Conservatives scream about california because it's a useful red herring. California's stupidity is not limited to democrats, but conservatives really like to push that california is bad BECAUSE of democrats, the classic correlation causation thing. Democrats often try to play the same dumb game with Texas, and that should be similarly rejected.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
But for you, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
mabbo 4y ago
This case was the one with an Amicus Curiae brief from "The Onion"[0] > The Onion files this brief to protect its continued ability to create fiction that may ultimately merge into reality. As the globe’s premier parodists, The Onion’s writers also have a self-serving interest in preventing political authorities from imprisoning humorists. This brief is submitted in the interest of at least mitigating their future punishment. [0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  > The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered coverage of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history. Excellent!
syzarian 4y ago
In effect, in the U.S. one risks punishment by the state for criticizing the police and there is no recourse against such punishment. We have de facto a situation like exists in Russia where criticizing the armed forces is illegal. Slowly, Americans will come to realize that we don’t have the rights we think we have. Spending a weekend in our hellish jails is enough to dissuade most people from exercising their rights. When stopped by the police the key thing to keep in mind is compliance. Accept any tickets, obey all commands (lawful or otherwise), answer the questions. If you disagree with the encounter take it up at a court hearing. Police can mess up your life with almost certain impunity and you should treat encounters with them with this in mind. Long term something will give. We will continue to march toward totalitarianism until it is no longer sustainable.
- ars 4y ago
  > In effect, in the U.S. one risks punishment by the state for criticizing the police and there is recourse against such punishment. He won at trial. If cops ever do it again he can point to the trial as clear prior evidence. This is about being arrested in the first place for something the cops think is illegal, but isn't. It's not about criticizing the police. This is also why he lost at the supreme court - the case was NOT about criticizing/parodying the police, it was about police conduct if they think something is illegal. I feel like a lot of people aren't realizing this distinction and making this case into something it is not.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Well, all it takes for police to pretend they think parody is illegal to have right to jail you. It was about right to parody, just that police has to use a stupid excuse to punish it.
  - sbuttgereit 4y ago
    > This is also why he lost at the supreme court This case isn't about free speech and rights suppression much the same way that he lost at the Supreme Court. The reality is he didn't lose at the Supreme Court... the Supreme Court didn't hear the case, they simply declined to hear the case. So he lost in a lower court and that ruling isn't being revisited. > the case was NOT about criticizing/parodying the police, it was about police conduct if they think something is illegal. Actually, this isn't correct either. The rejected case wasn't a free speech case nor even about what the police actually believed about something being legal/illegal. It was about whether or not he could sue the police department for their act. So the question you suggest the case is about hasn't been tested, though presumably it would have done so had he been able to sue. The question here was if your rights have been violated can you pursue a civil case where such questions as if the police acted in good faith (and that mattering) could be raised. Here the courts have said the question itself is out of order because there's no prior precedent of such a reasonably similar case having been pursued. This is why people that care about the individual rights implications are concerned about this case. If the precedent held by the courts says that you can't even raise the challenge because there's no previous precedent of such a challenge having been raised before, you prematurely answer all the questions without so much as a hearing. If that's true, then an agency that might violate your rights either out of malice or ignorance, will never have to do better. They are immune from challenges presumptively regardless of the legitimacy of the challenge relative to what the law says the rights are. To simplify the "right" becomes endangered of carrying any actual weight.
Scubabear68 4y ago
I don’t see how qualified immunity allows cops to void a person’s first amendment right to free speech. I will have to read this in more detail to see what the heck is going on.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Qualified immunity means that police officers violating someone's first ammendment rights can not be sued for that violation. The police department may still be liable, but not the individual officers. A state or federal prosecutor may be able to pursue criminal actions against the officers, but they usually choose not to.
iliketrains 4y ago
Here is a recent podcast episode about this incident that I enjoyed, incl. interview with the man: https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-206-novak-v-city-of-parma-2-17-2023 https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-206-novak-v-city-of-parma...
tzs 4y ago
Most commentators seem to be reading way to much into this, although NBC news bears some of the blame for that. This is a case of the Supreme Court declining to hear a case, not a case of the Supreme Court hearing a case and then making a decision. You can't really infer anything about the Court's opinion on the merits of the case in these situations, because there are a variety of common reasons for them to decline to hear a case that have nothing to do with the merits. ∙ They often don't want to take a case on some issue unless there has been conflicting rulings on that issue in different circuits. ∙ They often don't want to take a case unless the issue has been dealt with enough times in the lower courts to have hashed out the major arguments for both sides. ∙ Even when it is an issue that they think the Court should be taking up, they often like to wait until they get a case that presents the issue cleanly. ∙ If they think that the issue could be addressed adequately by legislation they will often decline to take a case. ∙ There are more cases submitted than the Court has time to handle. The case may simply have been pushed aside by more important cases.
- jfengel 4y ago
  And that is why I refuse to use the titles accorded to members of the Supreme Court. It is obviously an issue in which they take no interest. Whatever it is they dole out at the Supreme Court, it's not "justice".
- ajross 4y ago
  This is all true, but those points don't apply well here. This was a Qualified Immunity case[1], and one of the clearest abuses of that broken paradigm. There was genuine hope that this, finally, would be the case SCOTUS would take to clear up this mess. But I guess we have to keep waiting. [1] Essentially, as interpreted: you can't sue a cop unless some other court found another cop liable for exactly the same abuse. And since other courts are bound by the same principle, there aren't any such rulings. Obviously wikipedia will explain this more dryly, but the actual principle as applied really is this circular. It's a disaster.
  - anticensor 4y ago
    Then the US congress should make a statute to better delineate the limits of the qualified immunity.
claytongulick 4y ago
This is a strange situation where I don't think that Congress could easily fix the situation, though maybe someone with more expertise can correct me. Since the concept of qualified immunity is something that the courts came up with, normally Congress could reign it in. In this case, however, I can't think of an enumerated power that would allow the federal government to dictate policing liability to the states. With few (questionable) exceptions, police powers are reserved to the States. This would need to be legislation passed in every state, unless there was enough appetite for a Constitutional amendment addressing it. Until then, we're at the mercy of the courts - hoping that they revisit the concepts involved in light of historical case law and police abuses. Civil forfeiture is another one, though I think Congress has a strong case for regulating that under the fourth amendment, though it shouldn't be necessary [1] - the fourth amendment is pretty clear about due process for seizures. It's just that somehow everyone just ignores it. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/civil-forfeiture-warrantless-property-seizures-and-fourth-amendment https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/civil-fo...
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  Sure so why doesn’t any state do something about it? If there’s actually popular dislike for QI it should be easy enough.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    Because it's not a wedge issue that can be used to demonize the other guy, so no one really cares. Many in Congress these days are afraid to even give the appearance of working across the isle, because it'll surely be used against them by an opponent in a primary.
_carbyau_ 4y ago
So, leaving aside the legal case ruling or lack thereof. Is this a precedent where the Streisand Effect fails? The police can arrest one person and have the offending material removed and the internet does nothing? I am absolutely expecting a parody page of the police unit in question bragging how they can now police the internet.
tehwebguy 4y ago
“Sorry judge. I didn’t know I couldn’t do that.” Works every time!
theknocker 4y ago
[dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
robswc 4y ago
I think its ridiculous to arrest someone over this... does anyone have a link to an achieve or images of the facebook account?
tptacek 4y ago
Could just be that QI is too big an issue to pick up over a case as marginal as this one. Nobody is entitled to a Supreme Court case. Everything else aside, I don't know why anyone would be in a hurry to get a SCOTUS QI case. You'll get Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and if you're incredibly lucky and the stars align you might get Gorsuch (but probably not). Every other vote is a foregone conclusion. Why would you want this particular court setting QI precedent? For the foreseeable future, the path to beating back QI is going to be legislative, and policy shifts about policing start local. Go make friends with your city council or trustees board. You might be surprised what you can get done.
- grugagag 4y ago
  This incident is from 2016 though. But you’re right, it would be a lost cause to challenge QI in the current climate. Thing is that the Supreme court ballance was tilted quite badly for the foreseeable future
  - anothernewdude 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - gruez 4y ago
      Wikipedia says that he was charged of multiple crimes, and was dismissed/declared not guilty of all of them. Which specific charges do you think were unfairly acquitted/dismissed?
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Rittenhouse wasn't an agent of the state, so no aspect of QI applies to him.
        gruez 4y ago
        The parent poster seems to be claiming that even without being an agent of the state (ie. QI), that he was to "pull shit" without being punished by the justice system.
dools 4y ago
I bet we won’t hear from conservative talking heads on Fox News about this, which is an actual free speech issue, as much as we hear about Jordan Peterson being suspended from Twitter for dead naming trans people, which is not an actual free speech issue
ascotan 4y ago
Satire is the heart of the first amendment because by it's very nature it's political speech. Satire takes a very serious issue and makes it funny in a way that people think more about the issue. Nevertheless, this seems to be less about rights guaranteed by the first amendment and more about whether or not a violation of those rights can be brought to court. It seems like the answer to this is no, which to me, is contradictory.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re trying to make. 1A is about protecting speech from the overwhelming power of the government to abridge it. Police arresting someone for speech is precisely that. If a violation cannot be brought to court then 1A isn’t a thing. What is a right if it cannot be enforced?
  - MichaelDickens 4y ago
    Sounds like you are agreeing with GP? I believe GP was claiming that the court's position is there is a right to free speech, but not an ability to defend one's right to free speech in court (at least in this case), which renders the right to free speech meaningless, so the court's position is contradictory.
- abigail95 4y ago
  It was brought to court, multiple courts. The supreme court here is agreeing with the 6th circuit.
smcin 4y ago
In police state, activist does not defund police, police defund you!
mrtweetyhack 4y ago
[dead]
vitus 4y ago
> Novak sued the officers and the police department, saying they had violated his free speech rights, as well as his right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. > After lengthy litigation, a federal judge dismissed Novak's claims. What is the point of the fourth amendment if it can be ignored via qualified immunity? Are there any situations where it could still apply?
- tptacek 4y ago
  The real teeth of 4A is the exclusionary rule: evidence stemming from tainted searches is inadmissable.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
    - vuln 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    I agree that dismissing evidence that was gathered illegally is reasonable, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Even if illegally gathered evidence could be identified and excluded from use in trial, it does nothing to redress the wrong that was committed in gathering that evidence in the first place. Namely, loss of privacy is a harm in itself, not merely something that may lead to further harm. The exclusionary rule can prevent further harm, but cannot restore the peace of mind and security that was lost.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      OK, but worth keeping in mind that much of Europe (for instance) doesn't have an exclusionary rule; whatever redress you have, it does not include not having the illegitimate evidence weaponized against you.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
anitil 4y ago
Anyone interested in the Supreme Court may be interested in Five Four Podcast, including an episode about Qualified Immunity - https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/qualified-immunity/ https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/qualified-immunity/ I'm not even American and I really enjoy it.
photochemsyn 4y ago
The Supreme Kangaroo Court has been a farce ever since it voted 5-4 to halt the Florida vote count in the 2000 election on partisan political grounds. The justices appointed by GW Bush aren't even qualified as their appointer was selected by a conservative court majority that violated every conservative court view on state's rights in history. The American political and judicial system has become little more than a bad joke, worthy of nothing more than contempt and ridicule. The only certainty is that it will always come down on the side of monopolistic corporate entities, and of their armed goons.
darig 4y ago
[dead]
system2 4y ago
Citizens are helpless. Impossible to fix QI because 1% wants it this way.
Lio 4y ago
I couldn't see it in the article but was there a stated reason for the search his apartment? What were they looking for specifically? I'm not that familiar with US law but in the UK you have to have a reason for a search warrant and can't use anything found for unrelated crimes. Is it legal in the US to have a generic search warrant and just turn someone's apartment over looking for evidence of any crime? That seems like it would be open to abuse if so. Could anyone put this in layman's terms? (Actually if you could simplify it as if you were explaining it to your dog that would be even better. :P )
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  > in the UK you can't use anything found for unrelated crimes. So when the police in UK searches your apartment for computers because you insulted someone on twitter and an officer breaks their ankle while tripping over one of the skeletons in the living room you're not going down for murder?
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Respectfully, I don't think your core claim is true. The UK will usually only exclude evidence if it is not reliable. Illegally or Unlawfully obtained evidence is almost always admissible. This is one of the key differences between the UK and US legal systems. Even getting search warrants ruled unlawful does not make evidence gathered from such a warrant inadmissible. You may be able to get evidence excluded IF you can show it is unreliable. But not being legally obtained is almost never relevant... >A breach of rules in the criminal proceedings against a person under investigation is treated as irrelevant to the question of whether the evidence will be admissible. Automatic exclusion of evidence illegally or improperly obtained has never been adopted by the English courts. (later) >It can matter in English law how evidence is obtained. Although the general rule is that any relevant evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained, section 76 of PACE highlights how the way confessions are gained can affect the admissibility of the evidence. Furthermore, although section 78 provides discretionary powers relating to evidence being inadmissible if it would be averse to fairness, the House of Lords have accepted in A that some illegally obtained evidence cannot be used if it breaches Article 3. https://www.culs.org.uk/per-incuriam/illegally-or-improperly-obtained-evidence-does-it-matter-how-you-get-it https://www.culs.org.uk/per-incuriam/illegally-or-improperly... Interestingly the law has a specific section saying you cannot use confessions from torture (one of the few explicitly inadmissible sources of evidence). BUT if someone confesses under torture you CAN use any facts they reveal as part of the confession. I think that gives some flavour for the UK's approach to limits on police powers.
tpoacher 4y ago
> The police officers, Kevin Riley and Thomas Connor, say they had probable cause to arrest Novak because they genuinely believed his conduct was disrupting their operations That's is? That's all it takes? You don't have to provide any evidence for said belief corroborating your "feelings" of genuineness? All you have to do is "believe" something was going on, and you've got immunity from prosecution? "Why did you confiscate this man's money?" "Your honour, I genuinely believed it was fake money." "Was it fake?" "No, but I genuinely believed it." "Ah ok then, you may keep the moneyh. Dismissed".
- einpoklum 4y ago
  Also, it is not legitimate to have this recursive reason for arrest: Interfering with the activities of the arresting entity. This almost allows to arrest people for interfering with their own arrest. About confiscation of money - reality is stranger than fiction in the US in this respect, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... and particularly, administrative forefiture.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    In America, land of the free, you can be arrested for "Resisting Arrest" and nothing else
    - fear_and_coffee 4y ago
      If you resist enough it's upgraded to execution.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        Where running away is too frequently "enough".
LatteLazy 4y ago
America's definition of "Freedom" continues to get weirder...
JohnFen 4y ago
Of course. The police in the US are above the law.

318 points by heavyset_go 4y ago

> The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling in April that "the officers reasonably believed they were acting within the law" even if his Facebook page was obviously a parody. So police officers do not have to follow the law? They just have to believe that they are doing it?

kwhitefoot 4y ago
A step in the right direction surely? After all it seems from reading the news that previously they didn't even believe they were following the law! :-)
rnk 4y ago
This is exactly right. And even in many many cases where they have been shown to know they were actually violating it they have immunity too.
- eYrKEC2 4y ago
  It's better than that. They can even NOT BE A POLICE OFFICER, then act like a police officer, and then get qualified immunity. https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-case-of-government-engineer-who-acted-like-a-police-officer-got-qualified-immunity-anyway/ https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-c... Out. Of. Control.
  - rnk 4y ago
    Okay, that's absurd even to cynical me. Pretend to be a cop and have qualified immunity?
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      Does this mean I get qualified immunity too? I'm not pretending to be a cop but I think I should get it. This court will probably agree with me. Maybe all Americans should have qualified immunity!
      - rnk 4y ago
        [flagged]
        weard_beard 4y ago
        Actually you need to be a government employee too.
  - corndoge 4y ago
    I don't see anything in this article that indicates that the government official in question received qualified immunity because they acted like a police officer. It seems they already had it as part of their own job. Correct if wrong.
    - pavon 4y ago
      That is correct, but qualified immunity is supposed to apply to government officials acting withing the scope of their official responsibilities. We emphasize that our decision applies only to suits for civil damages arising from actions within the scope of an official's duties and in "objective" good faith. - Harlow v. Fitzgerald [1] For the courts to uphold that impersonating a police officer (which is a felony!) is with the scope of an engineer's duties is absurd. [1]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/#F34 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/#F34
      - zuminator 4y ago
        Part of that is that we're being misled by this whole 'impersonated a police officer' spin. He didn't pull the trucks over and say, "I'm a cop! You're under arrest." Rather, he claimed (and presumably believed) that he possessed, as a highway engineer, the authority to detain trucks that were violating a statute. Consider, in carrying out his official dutues, he has some degree of discretion in doing so. For example, some engineers might decide the best tool for their job that day is a slide rule. Others might decide on a given day to use an autoleveling level. And some, particularly Mr. Large, might decide on exercising the "detain trucks that are interfering with road work" provision. It turned out there was no such provision, and Large's job didn't have the authority to detain vehicles. But the absence of a statute specifically forbidding state employees (other than police officers) to detain trucks meant that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Keep in mind that QI doesn't mean that the injured party isn't entitled to damages at all, it just means they have to sue the state and not individual officers/officials. Of course, suing the state has its own hurdles. Some government bodies have very short statutes of limitations for filing lawsuits against them, and they must receive advance notice before the claim can even commence. And the claim might need to be filed in a special court. And the state may be protected from liability if it had no advance knowledge of a condition, or by a statute limiting the amount of damages.
  - cvoss 4y ago
    Why do you believe that qualified immunity only applies to police officers? I won't pretend to be an expert---today being the first day I've read about it---but, the very first Wikipedia article I read about the topic discusses qualified immunity w.r.t. "government officials", not "officers", which is a much bigger category of people. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
    - olliej 4y ago
      QI typically comes up in the context of police officers, so people don't understand the QI was extended from legislators, etc to police officers despite no legislative basis for such.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - runnerup 4y ago
      Teachers and school administrators also have qualified immmunity. They just tend to get fired when they egregiously screw up!
      - kmonsen 4y ago
        I think this is part of it, police officers have the double-whammy of QI and the police unions protecting them from any consequence.
        runnerup 4y ago
        It's interesting that teacher unions dont seem to have the same degree of absolute power.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        People are scared of crime, they usually aren't scared of students (unless the students are black, they put cops in those schools to arrest kids ofc)
- ElfinTrousers 4y ago
  Which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. I've thought for a long time that, if a cop is convicted as a crime, the simple fact that they are a cop should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing, and even more harshly if the offense had any hint of abuse of their legal authority.
  - thecrash 4y ago
    This makes sense in principle, but in practice police cannot both carefully adhere to the law and serve their intended function. Police are expected to be the security force of the powerful and influential against society's undesirables. If cops were required to strictly obey the law, they would be much less effective at this job. Most officers would understandably opt simply not to get involved in situations which might lead to someone's rights being violated. If the powerful want a force which is willing to knock heads for them, they need to assure that force it will not be held responsible for the mess it makes along the way.
    - BarryMilo 4y ago
      Ergo the difference between official and actual purpose
    - interactivecode 4y ago
      In civilized countries the police should have rules for how to act under certain conditions. For example how to de-escalate and then it’s allowed to drive through a red stoplight. In those countries if a police officer would drive through a red light without reason the should get a fine, suspension or other consequences. And I agree with an earlier commenter, since they should be extremely aware if the rules and boundaries, violations should be punished stricter.
    - magicalist 4y ago
      You say "but in practice..." but then proceed to handwave generalities. For instance, are you arguing we can preemptively say they don't have to follow any law on the off chance one of them might come up in the performance of their duties? It sounds an awful lot like you are, and there's essentially no "in practice" evidence to motivate that.
schneems 4y ago
> So police officers do not have to follow the law? Space_meme.jpg “never have” https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/what-is-qualified-immunity-for-police-and-why-are-there-calls-to-end-it/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/what-is-quali...
ElfinTrousers 4y ago
No, they just have to claim that they believe it. It's not like the judge can read their mind and prove they're lying. Another example of how, although small-scale corruption is rare in the US government (i.e. we don't have a culture where it's normal for ordinary folks to bribe cops or other officials), we have plenty of large-scale corruption baked right into the system. For further information, I refer you to the works of Messrs. E, Ren, and Cube, and Dr. Dre.
AdrianB1 4y ago
It does not matter, police officers have qualified immunity in all cases except when they don't, and they don't only if there is already a legal precedent telling they don't. Yes, circular reasoning.
__derek__ 4y ago
It's not even that strong because of the "reasonably believed" bit: they just have to plausibly deny knowledge of precedent explicitly barring their (hyper-specific) action.
- schoen 4y ago
  Could there be an impact from putting up some billboards about the legality of certain actions, where police officers would be likely to see them frequently?
  - ars 4y ago
    Interesting idea. Although the cops might claim they did not believe the billboards were accurate.
  - joelfried 4y ago
    I doubt it. There's too many ways for this not to work - the police testifies "I never saw that billboard". Even if they admit they saw it, so what? Anybody can say anything on a billboard, the police officer could say "Oh yeah, I saw it, but I have no idea if it's true" - and plausible deniability is sufficient as I understand it.
    - petsfed 4y ago
      "Oh yeah, I saw [the satirical facebook page about us], but I have no idea if its true" It's infuriating that this farce is what our legal system hinges on.
      - rnk 4y ago
        You can even put it on their qualification tests so you have documentation that they heard something was illegal and it doesn't matter. For many things they are effectively immune to prosecution. Add on that most prosecutors don't want to go after cops because they won't cooperate in cases after that.
    - 4y ago
fzeroracer 4y ago
Yes, correct. That's been the case for a while now and is part of the reason why they've gotten away with murder, theft etc even in circumstances where video evidence obviously implicates them. Policing as an institution in the US is incredibly rotten and backed up by the abuse of qualified immunity.
6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
It's ludicrous that ignorance of the law excuses them from following it, when it famously doesn't excuse the rest of us.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Yet another instance where the police demand to be held to lower standards than the rest of us little people, rather than higher standards.
jackmott42 4y ago
The citizens should revolt over a state of affairs like this.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  In unrelated news, police forces across the country have been trained to view the public as enemies who might kill them at any time [see Dave Grossman], and supplied with alarming amounts of military / SWAT level equipment. Also wholly unrelated, districts have hired huge numbers of PR people to shine up their image; for example, 67 full time PR and propaganda people for the LA area alone - https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1484966547244433416 https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1484966547244433416
cpncrunch 4y ago
>even if his Facebook page was obviously a parody. Here is the page in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8h4PIC4HhI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8h4PIC4HhI It had the police department logo, with no mention that it was a parody. The post said people would be arrested if they went outside at certain times. I would like to think that most people would question and fact check clearly weird shit like this. But, as we now know, the vast majority of people do not fact check. They take dumb shit like this at face value, hook line and sinker.
- humanistbot 4y ago
  Read the brief filed by The Onion. It is hilarious, but also a masterwork in arguing that parody only works by initially fooling people into believing it is real, which is illustrated by its own parodies of a legal brief. People have been trying to sue parody creators for not including a disclaimer since before the US existed, see Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. They cite ample precedents that US courts have consistently held that disclaimers are not needed to distinguish parody from sincere libel/slander for a "reasonable person," who precedent holds is not the average person or a "lowest-common denominator, but of reasonable intelligence and learning." https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
  - js2 4y ago
    Relevant TAL episode prologue: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/775/the-possum-experiment https://www.thisamericanlife.org/775/the-possum-experiment Lady puts up "Cat Found" posters around her L.A. neighborhood with pictures of a possum, as a stunt: https://hw4.thisamericanlife.org/sites/default/files/styles/portrait/public/episodes/images/cat-found-poster-jlw-3.jpg https://hw4.thisamericanlife.org/sites/default/files/styles/... Her voice mail explodes with callers from all over the country after the poster gets shared online. Hundreds of calls. She gets three types of messages, which she catalogued: 1. Those who didn't realize it was a joke or weren't sure and called to politely let her know she had found a possum, not a cat. About 70% of callers. 2. Those who realized it was obviously a joke and called to tell her she had found their cat. About 20% of callers. 3. Those who didn't realize it was a joke and called to tell her how dumb she was. She got some really mean messages. About 10% of callers.
ajross 4y ago
Stated more correctly: police officers cannot be found personally liable in civil court for breaking the law. They can be prosecuted by the state for crimes they commit, and the agencies that employ them can be sued for damages. But no, in practice you can't personally sue a cop in civil court in the United States for anything that can be even vaguely understood as police work, no matter how terrible an abuse it is.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Actually, there is at least one case showing you can't sue a government employee of any kind for anything that can even be vaguely understood as police work, no matter how terrible an abuse it is. The case was about a government engineer who legally acted as a police officer, but still got QI in his capacity as a government engineer for it, and it is settled (SCOTUS declined to hear it).
  - anticensor 4y ago
    > SCOTUS declined to hear it That counts as case dismissed, not as settled.
idontpost 4y ago
[dead]
8note 4y ago
The expectation is that they are held responsible by their employers.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  Does the court honestly believe this expectation?
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Which never happens unless it gets lots of attention. Good apples get punished if they speak up so the bad apples do what whatever they want.
danShumway 4y ago
Qualified immunity, a doctrine that I think was largely just wholesale invented by the Supreme Court out of nowhere because "it would be bad if this didn't exist." Left, right, center, whatever. Everyone should be on board with getting rid of it regardless of political affiliation, there are reasons for everyone to hate that qualified immunity for government workers/agents is a thing.
- Madmallard 4y ago
  Qualified Immunity is a step toward tyranny
  - backtoyoujim 4y ago
    It is tyrannical, and it engenders American capitalism with neofeudalism with chivalry being replaced with QI.
  - ghoogl 4y ago
    [dead]
- shrimpx 4y ago
  It maybe says that laws are too strict, since they can’t apply in “sticky but necessary” situations, so maybe we should delegislate down to the baseline level of QI.
  - zwkrt 4y ago
    Screw that. Unless I can refuse to be tried in a sticky but necessary situation, the cops don’t get that option.
- kolanos 4y ago
  It's way worse than that. Qualified immunity arose out of Pierson v. Ray: > The case refers to the incident in Jackson, Mississippi where 15 Episcopal priests were arrested after entering the coffee shop at the local Trailways bus terminal. The group were part of 28 priests from Episcopal Society for Cultural and Racial Unity, ... > On September 13, 1961, a group of 15 including three black priests took taxis from Tougaloo into the nearby Jackson Trailways bus terminal to catch the bus to Chattanooga. When entering the coffee shop to have lunch before their departure, they were stopped by two policemen, Officers David Allison Nichols and Joseph David Griffith, who asked them to leave. After the priests refused to leave, Captain J. L. Ray arrested and jailed all 15 priests for breach of peace, using a now-repealed section of the Mississippi code § 2087.5 that "makes guilty of a misdemeanor anyone who congregates with others in a public place under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby, and refuses to move on when ordered to do so by a police officer." > The group included 35-year-old Reverend Robert L. Pierson, who was son-in-law to the Republican Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller. They were brought to trial before the local judge James Spencer who found them guilty of breach of peace and sentenced them to four months in jail and $200 fine. > Represented by Carl Rachlin, the chief legal counsel at Congress of Racial Equality, they sought damages in the Jackson district court before Judge Sidney Mize, alleging the police and the local judge had violated Title 42, Section 1983 of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act by false arrest and imprisonment for exercising their civil rights. However, the jury found in favor of the police who said they were trying to prevent imminent violence from a gathered crowd, contradicting the evidence of the priests. > On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the local judge was immune from liability for his decision. Although the appeal court found the Mississippi code unconstitutional, it found that "Mississippi law does not require police officers to predict at their peril which state laws are constitutional and which are not." [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray
beardedwizard 4y ago
Imagine you are operating with good intent, and are now personally liable for every call you make under duress trying to fight crime. Batman has to crack a few eggs. Nobody would want to be a cop without some form of protection, but having this protection covers the worst cops. A tough situation, but if we make police work unappealing, what will we achieve? Are there successful examples of this? It is also interesting that software engineering is one of the only engineering professions that has no industry regulation or personal accountability for negligence.
- stonogo 4y ago
  Other professions have surety bonds and professional liability insurance. Right now if a cop does wrong the community pays. Rescinding qualified immunity and requiring sworn officers to personally bond and insure themselves would incentivise good behavior and appropriately redirect negative consequences to the actual problem sources.
- babelfish 4y ago
  Do you think the officers in this case were actually trying to fight crime, or make a petty arrest to a local citizen for an activity protected by 1A?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - creato 4y ago
    There are two groups of officers described by the parent post: ones who try to fight crime, and "the worst cops". They aren't the same group. The challenge is how to protect the first group and not the second. Would you want to be a cop if every shitbag you arrest is going to sue you for some frivolous crap? You will lose some of those cases even if you are a saint of a police officer.
    - karmelapple 4y ago
      Have medical doctors already solved this through insurance? Not a fantastic solution, and it increases costs, but it does provide due process for people making claims, and allows a court to decide whether a doctor did something wrong. Apply the same to police.
mtrower 4y ago
Intent is a large part of law to begin with.
vishnugupta 4y ago
Yes. And obligatory advice, “Don’t talk to the police.” https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
nxm 4y ago
They do follow the law. Also the guys was arrested, and not criminally convicted. Police arrest criminals before they’re trialed all the time…e.g. someone arrested for murder or robbery is not guilty until a trial, yet he or she was still arrested

aqme28 4y ago

Love how the Roberts court treats corporate speech (absolute freedom) versus the speech of regular people.

AdrianB1 4y ago
At stake is not the free speech, but the qualified immunity concept (something made up by SCOTUS 50-60 years ago).
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  [flagged]
- aqme28 4y ago
  In this case it's both. Police are immune from violating your freedom of speech.
  - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
    Sure but the case in question brought to SCOTUS was QI alone. They can’t rule on whatever they want, only the cases they get appealed.

d23 4y ago

This is a small government, conservative supreme court?

readthenotes1 4y ago
If you think of the police as the executive arm of the judiciary, then you can understand why they would want to give them immunity from accountability for their actions. The courts have ruled that the police are no responsibility to protect the public which only leaves their ability to enforce some laws as their responsibility. Qualified immunity dates back about 60 years as far as I can tell and is a complete creation solely of the courts.
- devnulll 4y ago
  Qualified Immunity could be easily fixed by law. That congress has been unwilling to pass such a law tells you that both sides support.
  - jasonlotito 4y ago
    The attempts to fix this has come from the left. That the defenders of this are center/right do not suggest "both sides support" this.
    - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
      Even in CA the legislature has done nothing to eliminate QI. That suggests it’s hardly opposed by the left.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        People should stop treating California as the bastion of the Democrats, since it really isn't. There are 49 other states, many of them blue, that have none of the problems california has. California has been a state that struggles to govern for it's people since it was first created. It was a conservative stronghold for decades, and was no better under republicans. It seems more like there's something in the water, or rather that californian corporate interests have always been above the people there. Conservatives scream about california because it's a useful red herring. California's stupidity is not limited to democrats, but conservatives really like to push that california is bad BECAUSE of democrats, the classic correlation causation thing. Democrats often try to play the same dumb game with Texas, and that should be similarly rejected.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

But for you, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

mabbo 4y ago

This case was the one with an Amicus Curiae brief from "The Onion"[0] > The Onion files this brief to protect its continued ability to create fiction that may ultimately merge into reality. As the globe’s premier parodists, The Onion’s writers also have a self-serving interest in preventing political authorities from imprisoning humorists. This brief is submitted in the interest of at least mitigating their future punishment. [0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...

quickthrower2 4y ago
> The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered coverage of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history. Excellent!

syzarian 4y ago

In effect, in the U.S. one risks punishment by the state for criticizing the police and there is no recourse against such punishment. We have de facto a situation like exists in Russia where criticizing the armed forces is illegal. Slowly, Americans will come to realize that we don’t have the rights we think we have. Spending a weekend in our hellish jails is enough to dissuade most people from exercising their rights. When stopped by the police the key thing to keep in mind is compliance. Accept any tickets, obey all commands (lawful or otherwise), answer the questions. If you disagree with the encounter take it up at a court hearing. Police can mess up your life with almost certain impunity and you should treat encounters with them with this in mind. Long term something will give. We will continue to march toward totalitarianism until it is no longer sustainable.

ars 4y ago
> In effect, in the U.S. one risks punishment by the state for criticizing the police and there is recourse against such punishment. He won at trial. If cops ever do it again he can point to the trial as clear prior evidence. This is about being arrested in the first place for something the cops think is illegal, but isn't. It's not about criticizing the police. This is also why he lost at the supreme court - the case was NOT about criticizing/parodying the police, it was about police conduct if they think something is illegal. I feel like a lot of people aren't realizing this distinction and making this case into something it is not.
- watwut 4y ago
  Well, all it takes for police to pretend they think parody is illegal to have right to jail you. It was about right to parody, just that police has to use a stupid excuse to punish it.
- sbuttgereit 4y ago
  > This is also why he lost at the supreme court This case isn't about free speech and rights suppression much the same way that he lost at the Supreme Court. The reality is he didn't lose at the Supreme Court... the Supreme Court didn't hear the case, they simply declined to hear the case. So he lost in a lower court and that ruling isn't being revisited. > the case was NOT about criticizing/parodying the police, it was about police conduct if they think something is illegal. Actually, this isn't correct either. The rejected case wasn't a free speech case nor even about what the police actually believed about something being legal/illegal. It was about whether or not he could sue the police department for their act. So the question you suggest the case is about hasn't been tested, though presumably it would have done so had he been able to sue. The question here was if your rights have been violated can you pursue a civil case where such questions as if the police acted in good faith (and that mattering) could be raised. Here the courts have said the question itself is out of order because there's no prior precedent of such a reasonably similar case having been pursued. This is why people that care about the individual rights implications are concerned about this case. If the precedent held by the courts says that you can't even raise the challenge because there's no previous precedent of such a challenge having been raised before, you prematurely answer all the questions without so much as a hearing. If that's true, then an agency that might violate your rights either out of malice or ignorance, will never have to do better. They are immune from challenges presumptively regardless of the legitimacy of the challenge relative to what the law says the rights are. To simplify the "right" becomes endangered of carrying any actual weight.

Scubabear68 4y ago

I don’t see how qualified immunity allows cops to void a person’s first amendment right to free speech. I will have to read this in more detail to see what the heck is going on.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Qualified immunity means that police officers violating someone's first ammendment rights can not be sued for that violation. The police department may still be liable, but not the individual officers. A state or federal prosecutor may be able to pursue criminal actions against the officers, but they usually choose not to.

iliketrains 4y ago

Here is a recent podcast episode about this incident that I enjoyed, incl. interview with the man: https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-206-novak-v-city-of-parma-2-17-2023 https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-206-novak-v-city-of-parma...

tzs 4y ago

Most commentators seem to be reading way to much into this, although NBC news bears some of the blame for that. This is a case of the Supreme Court declining to hear a case, not a case of the Supreme Court hearing a case and then making a decision. You can't really infer anything about the Court's opinion on the merits of the case in these situations, because there are a variety of common reasons for them to decline to hear a case that have nothing to do with the merits. ∙ They often don't want to take a case on some issue unless there has been conflicting rulings on that issue in different circuits. ∙ They often don't want to take a case unless the issue has been dealt with enough times in the lower courts to have hashed out the major arguments for both sides. ∙ Even when it is an issue that they think the Court should be taking up, they often like to wait until they get a case that presents the issue cleanly. ∙ If they think that the issue could be addressed adequately by legislation they will often decline to take a case. ∙ There are more cases submitted than the Court has time to handle. The case may simply have been pushed aside by more important cases.

jfengel 4y ago
And that is why I refuse to use the titles accorded to members of the Supreme Court. It is obviously an issue in which they take no interest. Whatever it is they dole out at the Supreme Court, it's not "justice".
ajross 4y ago
This is all true, but those points don't apply well here. This was a Qualified Immunity case[1], and one of the clearest abuses of that broken paradigm. There was genuine hope that this, finally, would be the case SCOTUS would take to clear up this mess. But I guess we have to keep waiting. [1] Essentially, as interpreted: you can't sue a cop unless some other court found another cop liable for exactly the same abuse. And since other courts are bound by the same principle, there aren't any such rulings. Obviously wikipedia will explain this more dryly, but the actual principle as applied really is this circular. It's a disaster.
- anticensor 4y ago
  Then the US congress should make a statute to better delineate the limits of the qualified immunity.

claytongulick 4y ago

This is a strange situation where I don't think that Congress could easily fix the situation, though maybe someone with more expertise can correct me. Since the concept of qualified immunity is something that the courts came up with, normally Congress could reign it in. In this case, however, I can't think of an enumerated power that would allow the federal government to dictate policing liability to the states. With few (questionable) exceptions, police powers are reserved to the States. This would need to be legislation passed in every state, unless there was enough appetite for a Constitutional amendment addressing it. Until then, we're at the mercy of the courts - hoping that they revisit the concepts involved in light of historical case law and police abuses. Civil forfeiture is another one, though I think Congress has a strong case for regulating that under the fourth amendment, though it shouldn't be necessary [1] - the fourth amendment is pretty clear about due process for seizures. It's just that somehow everyone just ignores it. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/civil-forfeiture-warrantless-property-seizures-and-fourth-amendment https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/civil-fo...

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
Sure so why doesn’t any state do something about it? If there’s actually popular dislike for QI it should be easy enough.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  Because it's not a wedge issue that can be used to demonize the other guy, so no one really cares. Many in Congress these days are afraid to even give the appearance of working across the isle, because it'll surely be used against them by an opponent in a primary.

_carbyau_ 4y ago

So, leaving aside the legal case ruling or lack thereof. Is this a precedent where the Streisand Effect fails? The police can arrest one person and have the offending material removed and the internet does nothing? I am absolutely expecting a parody page of the police unit in question bragging how they can now police the internet.

tehwebguy 4y ago

“Sorry judge. I didn’t know I couldn’t do that.” Works every time!

theknocker 4y ago

[dead]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

robswc 4y ago

I think its ridiculous to arrest someone over this... does anyone have a link to an achieve or images of the facebook account?

tptacek 4y ago

Could just be that QI is too big an issue to pick up over a case as marginal as this one. Nobody is entitled to a Supreme Court case. Everything else aside, I don't know why anyone would be in a hurry to get a SCOTUS QI case. You'll get Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and if you're incredibly lucky and the stars align you might get Gorsuch (but probably not). Every other vote is a foregone conclusion. Why would you want this particular court setting QI precedent? For the foreseeable future, the path to beating back QI is going to be legislative, and policy shifts about policing start local. Go make friends with your city council or trustees board. You might be surprised what you can get done.

grugagag 4y ago
This incident is from 2016 though. But you’re right, it would be a lost cause to challenge QI in the current climate. Thing is that the Supreme court ballance was tilted quite badly for the foreseeable future
- anothernewdude 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - gruez 4y ago
    Wikipedia says that he was charged of multiple crimes, and was dismissed/declared not guilty of all of them. Which specific charges do you think were unfairly acquitted/dismissed?
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Rittenhouse wasn't an agent of the state, so no aspect of QI applies to him.
      - gruez 4y ago
        The parent poster seems to be claiming that even without being an agent of the state (ie. QI), that he was to "pull shit" without being punished by the justice system.

dools 4y ago

I bet we won’t hear from conservative talking heads on Fox News about this, which is an actual free speech issue, as much as we hear about Jordan Peterson being suspended from Twitter for dead naming trans people, which is not an actual free speech issue

ascotan 4y ago

Satire is the heart of the first amendment because by it's very nature it's political speech. Satire takes a very serious issue and makes it funny in a way that people think more about the issue. Nevertheless, this seems to be less about rights guaranteed by the first amendment and more about whether or not a violation of those rights can be brought to court. It seems like the answer to this is no, which to me, is contradictory.

Waterluvian 4y ago
I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re trying to make. 1A is about protecting speech from the overwhelming power of the government to abridge it. Police arresting someone for speech is precisely that. If a violation cannot be brought to court then 1A isn’t a thing. What is a right if it cannot be enforced?
- MichaelDickens 4y ago
  Sounds like you are agreeing with GP? I believe GP was claiming that the court's position is there is a right to free speech, but not an ability to defend one's right to free speech in court (at least in this case), which renders the right to free speech meaningless, so the court's position is contradictory.
abigail95 4y ago
It was brought to court, multiple courts. The supreme court here is agreeing with the 6th circuit.

smcin 4y ago

In police state, activist does not defund police, police defund you!

mrtweetyhack 4y ago

[dead]

vitus 4y ago

> Novak sued the officers and the police department, saying they had violated his free speech rights, as well as his right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. > After lengthy litigation, a federal judge dismissed Novak's claims. What is the point of the fourth amendment if it can be ignored via qualified immunity? Are there any situations where it could still apply?

tptacek 4y ago
The real teeth of 4A is the exclusionary rule: evidence stemming from tainted searches is inadmissable.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
  - vuln 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- MereInterest 4y ago
  I agree that dismissing evidence that was gathered illegally is reasonable, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Even if illegally gathered evidence could be identified and excluded from use in trial, it does nothing to redress the wrong that was committed in gathering that evidence in the first place. Namely, loss of privacy is a harm in itself, not merely something that may lead to further harm. The exclusionary rule can prevent further harm, but cannot restore the peace of mind and security that was lost.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    OK, but worth keeping in mind that much of Europe (for instance) doesn't have an exclusionary rule; whatever redress you have, it does not include not having the illegitimate evidence weaponized against you.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

anitil 4y ago

Anyone interested in the Supreme Court may be interested in Five Four Podcast, including an episode about Qualified Immunity - https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/qualified-immunity/ https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/qualified-immunity/ I'm not even American and I really enjoy it.

photochemsyn 4y ago

The Supreme Kangaroo Court has been a farce ever since it voted 5-4 to halt the Florida vote count in the 2000 election on partisan political grounds. The justices appointed by GW Bush aren't even qualified as their appointer was selected by a conservative court majority that violated every conservative court view on state's rights in history. The American political and judicial system has become little more than a bad joke, worthy of nothing more than contempt and ridicule. The only certainty is that it will always come down on the side of monopolistic corporate entities, and of their armed goons.

darig 4y ago

[dead]

system2 4y ago

Citizens are helpless. Impossible to fix QI because 1% wants it this way.

Lio 4y ago

I couldn't see it in the article but was there a stated reason for the search his apartment? What were they looking for specifically? I'm not that familiar with US law but in the UK you have to have a reason for a search warrant and can't use anything found for unrelated crimes. Is it legal in the US to have a generic search warrant and just turn someone's apartment over looking for evidence of any crime? That seems like it would be open to abuse if so. Could anyone put this in layman's terms? (Actually if you could simplify it as if you were explaining it to your dog that would be even better. :P )

formerly_proven 4y ago
> in the UK you can't use anything found for unrelated crimes. So when the police in UK searches your apartment for computers because you insulted someone on twitter and an officer breaks their ankle while tripping over one of the skeletons in the living room you're not going down for murder?
LatteLazy 4y ago
Respectfully, I don't think your core claim is true. The UK will usually only exclude evidence if it is not reliable. Illegally or Unlawfully obtained evidence is almost always admissible. This is one of the key differences between the UK and US legal systems. Even getting search warrants ruled unlawful does not make evidence gathered from such a warrant inadmissible. You may be able to get evidence excluded IF you can show it is unreliable. But not being legally obtained is almost never relevant... >A breach of rules in the criminal proceedings against a person under investigation is treated as irrelevant to the question of whether the evidence will be admissible. Automatic exclusion of evidence illegally or improperly obtained has never been adopted by the English courts. (later) >It can matter in English law how evidence is obtained. Although the general rule is that any relevant evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained, section 76 of PACE highlights how the way confessions are gained can affect the admissibility of the evidence. Furthermore, although section 78 provides discretionary powers relating to evidence being inadmissible if it would be averse to fairness, the House of Lords have accepted in A that some illegally obtained evidence cannot be used if it breaches Article 3. https://www.culs.org.uk/per-incuriam/illegally-or-improperly-obtained-evidence-does-it-matter-how-you-get-it https://www.culs.org.uk/per-incuriam/illegally-or-improperly... Interestingly the law has a specific section saying you cannot use confessions from torture (one of the few explicitly inadmissible sources of evidence). BUT if someone confesses under torture you CAN use any facts they reveal as part of the confession. I think that gives some flavour for the UK's approach to limits on police powers.

tpoacher 4y ago

> The police officers, Kevin Riley and Thomas Connor, say they had probable cause to arrest Novak because they genuinely believed his conduct was disrupting their operations That's is? That's all it takes? You don't have to provide any evidence for said belief corroborating your "feelings" of genuineness? All you have to do is "believe" something was going on, and you've got immunity from prosecution? "Why did you confiscate this man's money?" "Your honour, I genuinely believed it was fake money." "Was it fake?" "No, but I genuinely believed it." "Ah ok then, you may keep the moneyh. Dismissed".

einpoklum 4y ago
Also, it is not legitimate to have this recursive reason for arrest: Interfering with the activities of the arresting entity. This almost allows to arrest people for interfering with their own arrest. About confiscation of money - reality is stranger than fiction in the US in this respect, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... and particularly, administrative forefiture.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  In America, land of the free, you can be arrested for "Resisting Arrest" and nothing else
  - fear_and_coffee 4y ago
    If you resist enough it's upgraded to execution.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Where running away is too frequently "enough".

LatteLazy 4y ago

America's definition of "Freedom" continues to get weirder...

JohnFen 4y ago

Of course. The police in the US are above the law.