2 ms·
https://www.generalservices.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/9_18_20_Qualified-Immunity-Cases.pdf https://www.generalservices.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/9...
by ceejayoz 8mo ago
https://www.generalservices.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/9_18_20_Qualified-Immunity-Cases.pdf https://www.generalservices.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/9...
> Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2019): Qualified immunity granted for officer who, hunting
a fugitive, ended up at the wrong house and forced six children, including two children under the age of
three, to lie on the ground at gunpoint. The officer tried to shoot the family dog, but missed and shot a
10-year-old child that was lying face down, 18 inches away from the officer. The court held that there
was no prior case where an officer accidentally shot a child laying on the ground while the officer was
aiming at a dog.
> Young v. Borders, 850 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2017): Qualified immunity granted to officers who, without
a warrant, started banging on an innocent man’s door without announcing themselves in the middle of
the night. When the man opened the door holding his lawfully-owned handgun, officers opened fire,
killing. One dissenting judge wrote that if these actions are permitted, “then the Second and Fourth
Amendments are having a very bad day in this circuit.”
> Estate of Smart v. City of Wichita, 951 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2020): Qualified immunity granted for
officer who heard gunshots and fired into a crowd of hundreds of people in downtown Wichita, shooting
bystanders and killing an unarmed man who was trying to flee the area. The court held that the shooting
was unconstitutional but there was no clearly established law that police officers could not “open fire on
a fleeing person they (perhaps unreasonably) believed was armed in what they believed to be an active
shooter situation.”
(And a bunch of others.)
And a matching case has to be very specific:
> Baxter v. Bracey, 751 F. App’x 869 (6th Cir. 2018): Qualified immunity granted for officers who sent a
police dog to attack a man who had already surrendered and was sitting on the ground with his hands in
the air. The court held that a prior case holding it unconstitutional to send a police dog after a person
who surrendered by laying on the ground was not sufficiently similar to this case, involving a person
who surrendered by sitting on the ground with his hands up.
"No clearly established law", my ass.
- giantg2 8mo agoWhat was the outcome of the lawsuits against the agencies? You don't have to win a suit against an individual. Most of the big payouts have to come from the cities. Here are a bunch going the other way. https://policefundingdatabase.org/explore-the-database/settlements/?settlements=&settlement-location=&settlement-comp=true#settlements-table https://policefundingdatabase.org/explore-the-database/settl... I never said that qualified immunity wasn't an issue, just that there tends to be more protections when use of force is involved than with property.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago> Most of the big payouts have to come from the cities. In other words, from the victimized populace. I think a cop who steals seized evidence should be personally liable to the person they stole from. (…and I'd note "v. City of Wichita" is clearly responsive to your question.)
- saynay 8mo agoI would probably say that both the city and the cop should, independently, be liable. Given the position of authority the city provides, it is ultimately responsible to hire and properly train people who will use that authority well, while the individual is also responsible for their own actions.
- giantg2 8mo ago"In other words, from the victimized populace." Sadly, yes. They're also the populace that voted for that leadership. There are many leaders of major cities that continually push policies that are highly probably to result in legal action due to their conflict with existing law and case law. I don't like it, but its true.
- coryrc 8mo agohttps://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5d778b8b342cca3e584ef6f7 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5d778b8b342cca3e584ef6... The prior opinion in this case, found at Jessop v. City of Fresno , 918 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2019), is hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc remains pending. I picked the second one to start. So I don't think that's a great source.