4 ms·
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
by 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the priests refused to leave, Captain J. L. Ray arrested and jailed all 15 priests for breach of peace, using a now-repealed section of the Mississippi code § 2087.5 that "makes guilty of a misdemeanor anyone who congregates with others in a public place under circumstances such that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
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dx034 4y agoI guess in this case I'd kind of agree? I fully believe police officers should know the law and act within it. But it's certainly not their job to judge if a law might be unconstitutional. That's what courts are for. And if a lower judge thinks a law might be unconstitutional, they also cannot just repeal it but instead send it to a higher court. So if someone is in breach of a law, police should act. The case discussed in the article is very different as police officers just believed they acted within the law. That should certainly not be enough.
- Someone 4y agoAgree, but I would leave out that “kind of”. As an example, there’s Roe v. Wade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade), which was partly overruled in 1992, “allowing states to implement abortion restrictions that apply during the first trimester of pregnancy” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey), and fully in 2022 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...) As a police officer in 1950, being informed of an, according to then current state law, illegal abortion, how on earth could you know what would happen later? Today, could you be sure that last ruling won’t be overturned again?
- komali2 4y agoThis is where ACAB rhetoric comes into play. This is why cops aren't welcome at LGBT parades. People will debate, "oh, but what if a cop happens to live in a state that made gay marriage illegal again? And then they're told to arrest people that got publicly married at an LGBT rally? Shouldn't they 'just follow orders' rather than be held responsible for determining the constitutionality of a state re-banning gay marriage?" Isn't that such an interestingly insane question? Qualified immunity lets people walk around unironically debating whether "just following orders" should be a valid thing that cops get away with doing. As for the cop that "just follows orders" and arrests a newlywed gay couple in 2023 (an entirely feasible thing considering what's happening with women seeking healthcare in Texas), is that a Good Cop, or a Bad Cop?
- 4y ago
- denton-scratch 4y ago> alleging the police and the local judge had violated Title 42 Judges gonna make judgements - that's their job. It's in the nature of judgements that they're not right or wrong. But in this case, the judge didn't even make the judgement; it was made by a jury. It's not a good look to try and get a judge convicted for doing his job.
- kolanos 4y agoThere was no potential for conviction here. They were barred from suing the judge and police officers civilly for damages. Qualified immunity only applies to civil matters.