by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 8, 2021 4:33 pm
(Updated April 9.) New Mexico this week enacted a bill regarding liability of public bodies for rights violations by the bodies or their officers. Despite the headline and lead sentence of this WSJ article, there are important features of this bill that make it very different from the repeal of qualified immunity that is being pressed by the anti-law-enforcement crowd around the country. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 25, 2021 8:31 am
The U.S. Supreme Court held today that a police officer “seizes” a fleeing suspect, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, by shooting her, even if the officer never gains actual control and the suspect escapes.
The Court split 5-3* in the case of Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292.
The opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Roberts applied the common law definition of when a person has been “arrested” to the Fourth Amendment question of when the protection against unreasonable seizures comes into play when the claimed seizure is of the person. The status of arrest had a variety of legal consequences, including liability of the officer for escape or a tort suit for false imprisonment. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 17, 2021 10:47 am
The Supreme Court decided long ago that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). But can a victim of crime sue a district attorney on the ground that a long pattern of discriminatory nonprosecution was a contributing cause of the crime? An amicus brief by former Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski joined by former Attorney General and District Judge Michael Mukasey and former District Judge F.A. Little asks the Fifth Circuit to address that question en banc. Beneath it lies a tangled tale as thick as the undergrowth in Louisiana swamp country. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 10, 2021 3:38 pm
Three years ago, three California District Attorneys sought to intervene in the long-running federal litigation over California’s lethal injection method. The Attorney General, in his role as attorney for the head of the prison department, was not properly representing the people of the State as the plaintiff in the underlying criminal cases, in their view. The federal district court refused intervention, and the DAs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Last Friday, the ACLU filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal for the First District, which covers the northern part of the San Francisco Bay Area and the north coast. They asked the state court to restrain the DAs from litigating in federal court. See this press release, with a link to the petition.
Yesterday, a mere two business days after the petition was filed, the Court of Appeal dismissed it. They did not even wait for the DAs to respond. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 8, 2021 8:13 am
A recurring problem in civil rights litigation is that a party with standing to have an allegedly illegal practice enjoined may not have standing by the time the litigation reaches completion. Students may graduate. Employees may change jobs. If an injunction is the only relief sought, the case may be declared moot and dismissed. In addition to the mootness problem, injunctive relief might not be available from the beginning. A person subjected to a questioned police practice may be highly unlikely to ever face it again.
A party whose rights are violated but who suffers no real damage may sue for “nominal damages,” a token award of, say, one dollar. The Supreme Court held today that such damages are sufficient to prevent mootness and allow the suit to reach conclusion. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 3, 2021 9:36 am
Generally, one cannot sue a foreign government in American courts. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act establishes the basic rule, subject only to specified exceptions.
In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, No. 19-351, the Supreme Court addressed a sale of art allegedly coerced by the government of Nazi Germany in 1935 for only one-third of its value. Can the heirs of the sellers sue the present German government in U.S. courts to get it back? Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Dec 30, 2020 3:52 pm
The Los Angeles Superior Court wasted no time moving forward on the suit by the Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) regarding the new DAs blanket ban on sentence enhancements. See this post. Continue reading . . .
by Michael Rushford · Dec 23, 2020 10:29 am
The city of Detroit has filed a civil lawsuit against Black Lives Matter seeking damages for the destruction of property and injuries to police sparked by protests that turned into riots over the summer. Dom Calicchio of Fox News reports that during the rioting several Detroit police officers suffered severe injuries. The suit was filed in response to a lawsuit filed by BLM activists claiming that police used excessive force against demonstrators. The city’s counteraction has infuriated Detroit Congresswoman Tashida Talib, a member of the “Squad”, who characterized the suit as “an unthinkable assault on our constitutional rights.” I was not aware that the First Amendment included the right to loot and burn businesses and throw bricks at police officers. Good for Detroit.
by Kent Scheidegger · Dec 11, 2020 10:29 am
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) permits suits for money damages against government officers, including law enforcement. The Court also indicated in a footnote that qualified immunity applies to these suits, as it does to civil rights suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Nov 2, 2020 8:55 am
When is a protest organizer liable under state tort law for injury to a police officer when the protest turns violent? When is such liability blocked by the First Amendment?
The U.S. Supreme Court today summarily vacated and remanded a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court of Appeals had ruled on the constitutional question without first adequately resolving the state law question. Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED