U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Appeals Court: Police can violate our rights without fear of being sued
Source:
The Daily Sheeple
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/appe ... hout-fear-of-being-sued_102018
Published: Oct 23, 2018
Author: Mass PivateI
Post Date: 2018-10-27 16:00:49 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1291
Comments: 3
For those of you that claim we don’t live in a police state, I give you this recent Michigan Appeals Court ruling. In 2015, Deputy James Dawson went to Joshua Brennan’s home and knocked on his door trying to obtain a breath sample. When Brennan did not answer, Dawson spent an hour and a half knocking at his doors and windows. Officer Dawson also put crime-scene tape over Brennan’s security cameras to conceal his actions and used his siren and cruiser lights in an attempt to rouse him. When Brennan finally opened his door, officer Dawson forced him to take a breathalyzer and arrested him for a probation violation even though he blew a 0.000. All of this was done without a warrant. (Warrantless breathalyzer tests was not a condition of Brennan’s probation.) If you think, it is obvious to any reasonable person that his rights were violated. Then you don’t know how the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals interprets the Constitution. The fact that this even went to an Appeals Court, speaks volumes about our justice system but I digress. Let’s get back to the ruling; judge John Nalabandian said that officer Dawson did violate Brennan’s Fourth Amendment rights by searching him without a warrant. All is good so far, right? Not quite, Nalabandian went on to say “police actions that violate the Constitution do not lead to liability.” The court also ruled that since officer “Dawson’s implied license was not clearly established” and because of that old police standby, “deficient training” he cannot be sued. To say that the court’s reasoning is frustrating is an understatement. The court said that because “Wilson and Clare County were not on actual or constructive notice that the deputy training was deficient they could not be liable.” Does anyone really think police are held to a higher standard when they constantly use the “deficient training” excuse? If you are upset by the court’s ruling that police are not liable for violating the Constitution I warn you, it only gets worse. Citizens must prove to judges that violating out rights is unlawful According to the Sixth Circuit and this speaks volumes about our justice system “the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right was so well settled that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing is unlawful.” In other words, citizens must prove to a “reasonable official” [judge] that a police officer violating the Constitution is unlawful. The Sixth Circuit claimed that since the Hardesty v. Hamburg Twp. ruling did not set a limit on how long a police officer can harass people at their homes Brennan cannot sue the police. Even though they admitted that “absent a warrant a police officer has no greater license to remain on the property than a Girl Scout or trick-or-treater.” The ruling repeatedly admits that “Dawson arguably violated the Constitution.” but states for a second time that “even if a government official violated a constitutional right, that official is entitled to qualified immunity.” The Sixth Circuit refused to view the “constitutionality of the officer’s conduct or the continuing viability of Hardest and Turk.” Not only did the Appeals court rule that Brennan cannot sue the police for violating his rights but they dismissed his unlawful arrest claim as well. Only one judge, Karen Moore dissented and agreed like any “reasonable official” should, saying Brennan’s rights were violated and the officer could be sued. Why is the media silent when rulings as egregious as this are taking place across the country? Proving to “reasonable officials” that violating our rights is unlawful? America is fast on its way to becoming a police state.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Wilson Vs. Arkansas The Court read its earlier Wilson opinion to suggest that such circumstances might include those: * which present a threat of physical violence * where there is "reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given" * where knocking and announcing would be dangerous or "futile" The Court expressly stated that whether reasonable suspicion exists depends in no way on whether police must destroy property in order to enter.[9] In a similar manner, where officers reasonably believe that exigent circumstances, such as the destruction of evidence or danger to officers will exist, a no-knock warrant may be issued.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Replies to Comment # 1.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]