SCOTUS 8-0 For The Police

[Kathianne]

Good ruling:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/30/supreme-court-rules-8-0-for-police-in-ma


Supreme Court Rules 8-0 for Police in Major Fourth Amendment Case (http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/30/supreme-court-rules-8-0-for-police-in-ma)SCOTUS rejects “provocation doctrine,” says illegal police search must be viewed separately from subsequent police use of force.Damon Root (http://reason.com/people/damon-w-root/all)|<time datetime="2017-05-30T17:15:00+00:00" style="font-family: Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 11.9px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">May. 30, 2017 1:15 pm

</time>In 2002 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that the lawful use of deadly force by the police may be ruled unlawful if the police themselves "created the need to use force" by acting in an illegal manner. "Where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation," the 9th Circuit held (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Billington+v.+Smith&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&case=7005122290504048977&scilh=0) in Billington v. Smith, the officer "may be held liable for his otherwise defensive use of deadly force." Otherwise known as the "provocation doctrine," this legal standard has served as an important check on overreaching law enforcement tactics. Today, by a vote of 8-0 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-369_09m1.pdf), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the 9th Circuit's reasoning and wiped the provocation doctrine off the books.
...

[Gunny]

I disagree with the decision. The police should be held accountable for their actions every bit as much as citizens. They use unnecessary force regularly and all you need to do is watch an episode of COPS where such behavior is glorified. The citizen should have recourse.

[revelarts]

I disagree with the decision. The police should be held accountable for their actions every bit as much as citizens. They use unnecessary force regularly and all you need to do is watch an episode of COPS where such behavior is glorified. The citizen should have recourse.

Agree 100%.

no one should be above the law.. legally untouchable.

[Kathianne]

So I guess all the judges are wrong on SCOTUS and right on the 9th circuit. Thank you for the edification.

[revelarts]

So I guess all the judges are wrong on SCOTUS and right on the 9th circuit. Thank you for the edification.

In this case Yes.
and you're welcome.

Self policing with ZERO legal accountably is NOT a constitutional right.
Please show me portions of the constitution that grant that to police Kath.

I'll have to see the ruling to try to understand what pretzel like, Roe v Wade, style justifications they use for this one.

[Black Diamond]

Doesn't say whether Mendez aimed the BB gun at police. Article is chastising cops, though, so no surprise. Amazing the unanimous decision.

[Kathianne]

In this case Yes.
and you're welcome.

Self policing with ZERO legal accountably is NOT a constitutional right.
Please show me portions of the constitution that grant that to police Kath.

I'll have to see the ruling to try to understand what pretzel like, Roe v Wade, style justifications they use for this one.

Alito wrote for the majority, Gorsuch did not participate:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-369_09m1.pdf



...

Angel Mendez had a BB gun to kill rats, and he was holding it when the officers entered. Both officers opened fire, seriously wounding Mendez and his pregnant companion, a woman he later married. Mendez and his wife were awarded $4 million in damages.

Alito noted that the provocation rule may be motivated by the notion that it is important to hold police officers liable for the foreseeable consequences of their constitutional torts.

“However, there is no need to distort the excessive force inquiry in order to accomplish this objective,” Alito said. “To the contrary, both parties accept the principle that plaintiffs can—subject to qualified immunity—generally recover damages that are proximately caused by any Fourth Amendment violation.”

If the plaintiffs in the case before the court can’t recover on their excessive force claim, they still might be able to recover for injuries proximately caused by the warrantless entry, Alito said.

Alito said the issue should be revisited on remand.

The case is Los Angeles County v. Mendez.

[Gunny]

So I guess all the judges are wrong on SCOTUS and right on the 9th circuit. Thank you for the edification.Constitutionally? Unlerss you're a fascist ... yep, they are wrong. I see cops slamming people around unnecessarily/using excessive force, bullying suspects, taunting them, telling them when they can and can't talk, what they can say ... goading people into aggression, thinking it takes 10 cops to beat up and take down one suspect, digging their knees into people's heads masking them into the asphalt ...

You're damned right I think the decision is wrong. Worse, all you bleeding hears claiming to be about the Constitution and Rights will sit and watch these reality police shows that glorify police brutality and get your little kicks. Now you support taking away a citizen's Right to redress grievances. Not because it's right. Because it's popular.

[Abbey Marie]

This appears to be essentially a "fruits of the poisonous tree" argument being shot down. Not unexpected from a Conservative court.

I have not read the opinion, but in the part quoted here, I note that Alito said there is still no bar to recovery from an independent 4th Amendment violation.

IMO, police activity is often in response to highly fluid and dangerous situations, and each case should be judged on its own merits. And the 4th is very protective of citizens' rights.

[Kathianne]

This appears to be essentially a "fruits of the poisonous tree" argument being shot down. Not unexpected from a Conservative court.

I have not read the opinion, but in the part quoted here, I note that Alito said there is still no bar to recovery from an independent 4th Amendment violation.

IMO, police activity is often in response to highly fluid and dangerous situations, and each case should be judged on its own merits. And the 4th is very protective of citizens' rights.

Exactly.

[Gunny]

This appears to be essentially a "fruits of the poisonous tree" argument being shot down. Not unexpected from a Conservative court.

I have not read the opinion, but in the part quoted here, I note that Alito said there is still no bar to recovery from an independent 4th Amendment violation.

IMO, police activity is often in response to highly fluid and dangerous situations, and each case should be judged on its own merits. And the 4th is very protective of citizens' rights.I have no problem with with judging each situation individually based on its own merit. It mat sound otherwise, but I am not anti-cop.

I'm pretty up to snuff on use of force. I consider most cops rank amateurs. It's a shame the good cops have to suffer because of the bad ones. As a Marine, I know the drill. One Marine screws up and the public in large indicts EVERY Marine. At the same time, the Corps will hammer you into Hell for breaking the lae; especially, where use of force is concerned.

Police get too much leeway. They can talk to you however they want, treat you however they want, and twist whatever they want into an excuse to do so. The ones that do should be help accountable.

I still disagree with the decision. I think this is one case the Supreme Court should have returned to the State.