SCOTUS SIDES WITH COPS ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

by Bob Walsh


Last week SCOTUS ruled in two separate cases regarding excess force lawsuits against peace officers.  In both cases the court upheld the concept of Qualified Immunity for the officers.


In the CA case Officer Daniel Rivas-Villegas responded to a domestic where a man was threatening his GF and their children with a chain saw.  The officer pinned the asshole to the ground for about eight seconds (literally) with a knee on his back while another officer hooked up the asshole.  An appeals court had earlier said that Rivas-Villegas was not entitled to a qualified immunity defense due to existing precedents.  SCOTUS ruled that his case and the precedents were sufficient different that the officer could not reasonably be considered to have received "fair notice" that this conduct could be considered excessive force.


In the OK case cops showed up to a drunk asshole armed with a hammer in his ex's garage.  He refused to drop the hammer.  The cops dropped him.  An appeals court said the officers created the situation by "cornering" the drunk asshole.  (Isn't that known as containing a threat?)  SCOTUS overruled the appeals court, asserting that they could not find one single precedent  of a 4th Amendment violation under similar circumstances.  


It should be noted that the court did not necessarily state the actions were not excessive, merely that the officers could not be deprived of qualified immunity under the circumstances.