Select Page

Two Cops Were Given Qualified Immunity After Allegedly Stealing $225,000. SCOTUS Won’t Hear the Case.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Court decided that two police officers in Fresno, California, who allegedly stole more than $225,000 in assets while executing a search warrant, could not be sued over the incident. Though “the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong,” the unanimous 9th Circuit panel said, the officers “did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment.”

In other words, the cops didn’t have enough warning to know that stealing is an encroachment on one’s constitutional rights. So it goes with qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields public officials from certain civil lawsuits as long as their misconduct has not been explicitly spelled out in pre-existing case law. The Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear that case, Jessop v. Fresno, along with two other cases pertaining to qualified immunity.

Jessop has all the baffling characteristics so often at the center of qualified immunity rulings. Amid the absence of a near-identical court precedent, we’re supposed to believe that the officers in question had not yet received sufficient prior warning that their conduct was constitutionally dubious. 

In theory, qualified immunity protects public officials from vacuous lawsuits that might hinder their job performance. In actuality, it often allows them to get away with offenses that would land a normal person behind bars. As Reason’s C.J. Ciaramella has pointed out, a recent investigation by Reuters analyzed 252 federal appellate opinions dealing with qualified immunity and found that the courts granted such immunity to police officers more than half of the time.

“Even as the proliferation of police body cameras and bystander cellphone video has turned a national spotlight on extreme police tactics,” the Reuters report notes, “qualified immunity, under the careful stewardship of the Supreme Court, is making it easier for officers to kill or injure civilians with impunity.”

The Supreme Court yesterday also declined to hear Clarkston v. White and Kelsay v. Ernst. “This is disappointing,” wrote Jay Schweikert, a criminal justice policy analyst at the Cato Institute. “The Kelsay and Jessop cases in particular involved especially egregious applications of qualified immunity that were crying out for correction, if not summary reversal.”

Indeed, the ruling in Kelsay, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, is perhaps even more confounding than the one in Jessop. Melanie Kelsay claimed that a police officer—who was responding to her complaint that a man was attacking her at a community swimming pool—actually assaulted her. After she did not obey his command to “get back here,” she alleged in a lawsuit, the officer allegedly grabbed her in a bear hug and slammed her to the ground, breaking her collarbone and knocking her unconscious in the process. 

At its private conference this Thursday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether or not to hear another 10 qualified immunity cases. One of them is Corbitt v. Vickers, which I wrote about in July. In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit awarded Deputy Sheriff Matthew Vickers qualified immunity after he shot a 10-year-old boy while aiming at a nonthreatening dog. Vickers was in pursuit of a criminal suspect who had no relationship to the boy and who was eventually apprehended without incident. 

The 11th Circuit acknowledged that the boy has required ongoing care from an orthopedic surgeon due to the shooting and has “suffered severe pain and mental trauma.” But the court declined to let his mother, Amy Corbitt, sue Vickers for damages. “Corbitt failed to present us with any materially similar case from the United States Supreme Court, this Court, or the Supreme Court of Georgia,” the 11th Circuit wrote, “that would have given Vickers fair warning that his particular conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.”


This post has been republished with permission from a publicly-available RSS feed found on Reason. The views expressed by the original author(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of The Libertarian Hub, its owners or administrators. Any images included in the original article belong to and are the sole responsibility of the original author/website. The Libertarian Hub makes no claims of ownership of any imported photos/images and shall not be held liable for any unintended copyright infringement. Submit a DCMA takedown request.

-> Click Here to Read the Original Article <-

About The Author

Billy Binion

Founded in 1968, Reason is the magazine of free minds and free markets. We produce hard-hitting independent journalism on civil liberties, politics, technology, culture, policy, and commerce. Reason exists outside of the left/right echo chamber. Our goal is to deliver fresh, unbiased information and insights to our readers, viewers, and listeners every day. Visit https://reason.com

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Welcome

Bringing together a variety of news and information from some of today’s most important libertarian thought leaders. All feeds are checked and refreshed every hour and pages auto-refresh every 15 minutes. External images are deleted after 30 days.

Time since last refresh: 0 second

Publish Your Own Article

Follow The Libertarian Hub

 

Support Our Work

Support the Libertarian Hub by tipping with Bitcoin!

Send BTC:
19PU2K7448gKxAvisR5cF6X5RquYfWu5vZ

Weekly Newsletter

Newsletter Signup

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive a weekly email report of the top five most popular articles on the Libertarian Hub!

Weekly Newsletter SignupTop 5 Stories of the Week

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive a weekly email report of the top five most popular articles on the Libertarian Hub!