If you’ve been following the Minneapolis police handling of George Floyd, you probably also know that police mistreatment of people–white people as well as black people–is not a new issue. One of the reasons is the lenient way courts and juries often treat policemen who badly hurt or even kill innocent, or relatively innocent, people.
My favorite commenter on these legal issues is John K. Ross. Ross is a researcher and editor of Short Circuit for the Institute for Justice, and a former Reason intern.
Every Friday, he writes Short Circuit, a roundup of interesting court cases around the country. He gets to the point very quickly, much more quickly than most legal commentators, but provides links so that if you want to follow up, you can.
His latest is here.
And here’s a sampling from the latest issue:
Allegation: After quadruple murder, Detroit police officers interrogate 14-year-old who lived nearby, feed him details of the crime. They falsely tell him his shoes tested positive for blood. The teen eventually confesses after the officers assure him he can go to school the next day. The real murderer confesses two weeks later, but no one follows up. The teen spends nine years in prison before being exonerated. Sixth Circuit: No qualified immunity for the detectives. (Click here for more from the National Registry of Exonerations.)
So the cops lied and after the real murderer confessed, they forgot to tell the court. Oops. What’s 9 years to a teenager?
Allegation: Man drunkenly argues, fights with his uncle. The man gets a gun from his car, heads back to the uncle’s porch. The uncle goes inside the house and locks the door, and the man turns away from the porch, the whole time pointing the gun (turns out it was a pellet gun) at either the ground or the sky. At that moment, and without announcing his presence, a Little Rock, Ark. officer shoots at the man five times, hitting him once in the head and killing him. Eighth Circuit: No qualified immunity.
Police get call about “a skinny black man” who might be casing Madison, Ala. neighborhood, approach 115-lb, 57-year-old Indian man who repeats “no English” several times. An officer frisks him, takes him to the ground, kneels on him while his head lolls and nose bleeds. The (unarmed) man, who was out for a morning stroll in his new neighborhood, is permanently paralyzed. Eleventh Circuit: Could be excessive force. No qualified immunity. (The cop was fired and charged with assault—and then acquitted and rehired.)
Disclosure: I give annually to the Institute for Justice, one of the worthiest charities I have found.
READER COMMENTS
MarkW
May 31 2020 at 7:41pm
I contribute to IJ too and feel like it’s a great investment. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that needs to die a quick and permanent death. The U.S. Supreme Court may actually strike it down soon, and let’s hope very much that’s what happens.
David Seltzer
Jun 3 2020 at 4:16pm
I have nothing to add or subtract to what has been said. BUT! I will now contribute to IJ.
Michael Jungreis
Jun 3 2020 at 5:28pm
Qualified immunity is not really the problem. The underlying issue is that the states have all passed “tort claims” acts that forbid lawsuits against government agents for intentional conduct such as assaults. Seeking a way around this, federal courts invented a way to sue cops for assault etc. by defining it as a violation of civil rights, under a statute that was actually meant to prohibit racial discrimination. Then other judges limited the use of the civil rights law by further inventing the concept of “qualified immunity” to provide protection to government officials including police.
We should stop using judges to make all of these laws. This is in essence a political issue, and should be resolved by legislatures fixing the problem they created by allowing tort claims in appropriate cases. Remember, all of the outrageous conduct in those examples could be the target of ordinary tort lawsuits if it was regular citizens who did it, and not government agents proteced by the tort claims acts.
Michael Stack
Jun 4 2020 at 3:27pm
That’s really interesting. I’m not in a position to evaluate those claims, but it makes sense.
Mark Z
Jun 5 2020 at 10:07pm
Interesting, since many state legislatures seem to be made up of politicians that are ostensibly pro-reform. Maybe state politicians are afraid of the political fallout from overturning the tort claims acts (such as losing support from police unions) and would rather wait for the courts or federal government to deal with it.
Craig
Jun 9 2020 at 8:44am
Even if qualified immunity is eliminated and even if states allowed people to sue their police, individually, ultimately its not going to be a difference that will make much of a difference. At the present time, if we presume immunity, the situation that prevails is that the employer is thus held vicariously liable for the torts of the employee.
So, one way or the other we change that as a society and now the employee can be held liable for torts committed while an employee. We now go to a regime where the employer and employee are now jointly and severally liable.
Maybe as a result police will become too gun shy or they will simply avoid engaging altogether. Who knows? But now lets assume liability is imposed, the officer’s assets are attached, he goes to prison and now his family is homeless and without the benefit of his income. Well, maybe that is fair, maybe its not, but ultimately that’s not what is going to happen.
If the employee can be held individually liable he will bargain with his employer to indemnify him and hold him harmless or, in the alternative, to pay for professional liability/E&O insurance.
Let’s not forget that, in this circumstance, Chauvin is facing a lifetime of confinement, he will absolutely lose his pension too I might add. Civil liability is the least of his problems.
Comments are closed.