The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to overturn a 10th Circuit appeals-court ruling that upheld the actions of police officers who forced a woman to stop praying silently in her home.
The petition charges the Louisberg, Kansas, officers stopped Mary Anne Sause from praying not to further any legitimate law-enforcement interest, but “so they could harass her.”
“The 10th Circuit correctly ‘assumed’ this conduct ‘violated Sause’s rights under the First Amendment,'” the woman’s legal team explained. “Yet the 10th Circuit nevertheless granted qualified immunity to the officers, solely on the ground that their alleged conduct was so obviously unconstitutional that there is no prior case law involving similar facts.”
WND reported last summer Judges Tim Tymkovich, Carlos Lucero and Nancy Moritz of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver found that the police defendants in the constitutional-violations case were protected even though they violated Sause’s constitutional rights.
Sause sued after, she said, the officers came to her door, demanded entry, intimidated her, told her to stop praying and made fun of her.
The officers later said they were at her home on a noise complaint.
The woman claimed the officers said the Constitution is “just a piece of paper” that “doesn’t work here” and told her to prepare to go to jail.
The complaint states: “Terrified, Ms. Sause asked one of the officers if she could pray. After being told she could, she knelt in silent prayer, only to have another officer enter the room and order her to stop praying. Only at the end of the encounter did they tell her that they were there because of a minor noise complaint that her radio was too loud.”
The appeals judges noted Sause’s “complaint states a plausible claim.”
“We don’t necessarily disagree. Indeed, for purposes of resolving this appeal, we assume that the defendants violated Sause’s First Amendment rights. But even with the benefit of that assumption, the defendants are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity,” the 10th Circuit found.
First Liberty said the majority opinion by the 10th Circuit panel “assumed that a First Amendment violation occurred, but stated that the police officers were shielded from liability based on the legal doctrine of qualified immunity.”
“The Tenth Circuit’s opinion assumed the police officers violated Ms. Sause’s constitutional rights when they mocked her, humiliated her, and ordered her to stop praying in her home,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty. “Police officers should have known that ordering a woman not to pray in her own home violates the First Amendment.”
Stephanie Taub, counsel for First Liberty, said the constitutional rights “of law abiding citizens like Ms. Sause should not be ignored, and she deserves her day in court.”
“This case is about protecting the religious liberties of a private citizen in one of the most sacred and protected places in legal doctrine: the home. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will recognize Ms. Sause’s case as one of the utmost importance and grant her petition.”
The incident took place Nov. 22, 2013, when the officers demanded entry to her home.
“Sause is a rape survivor, so she is careful to make sure that she can identify visitors before she opens the door. According to Sause, she did not open the door to the police officers because they did not identify themselves and she was not able to see them due to her broken peephole,” the legal team explained.
But the officers returned and demanded entry.
What followed was about an hour of harassment, the complaint stated.
“No American should be told that they cannot pray in their own home,” said Taub. “The right to pray in the privacy of one’s own home is clearly protected by the First Amendment.”
The case is against Louisburg, its police department, Chief Timothy Bauer, and officers Jason Lindsey and Brent Ball and others. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
The filing asks, “Would a reasonable police officer have known that forcing a citizen to stop praying silently in her home – absent any legitimate justification whatsoever – violated the First Amendment?”
The complaint quotes the U.S. Supreme Court: “To ask that question is to answer it: ‘The principle that government may not …. suppress religious belief or practice is so well understood that few violations are recorded in our opinions.”
That, however, is “precisely” what Sause alleges.
“They told her that ‘the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ‘nothing, just a piece of paper’ that ‘doesn’t work here,’ and that ‘she was going to jail.’
“They ordered her to stop praying so they could harass her,” the petition states.
“The 10th Circuit nevertheless ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity – because their allegd conduct was so egregiously unconstitutional that no court ‘has found a First Amendment violation based on a factual scenario even remotely resembling the one we encounter here.'”
The brief asks that the judgment be summarily reversed.
The petition states: “Tymkovich wrote separately to denounce the ‘reprehensible’ nature of the officers’ alleged conduct – ‘the officers here acted with extraordinary contempt of a law abiding citizen and they should be condemned’ – and to explain his view that the allegations ‘fit more neatly in the Fourth Amendment context.’ As he explained, ‘although the officers’ initial motives may have been legitimate, Ms. Sause’s complaint indicates that the situation quickly devolved.'”
The case argues, “Even without precedent involving similar egregious facts, the officers had clear notice that commanding a citizen to stap praying silently in her home – absent any justification – was unconstitutional.”
#1: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#0)
She can pray. Just not when she is being questioned by police.
That is my take from reading a little of the article.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 09:06:15 Reply Private Reply
#2: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#1)
“The Tenth Circuit’s opinion assumed the police officers violated Ms. Sause’s constitutional rights when they mocked her, humiliated her, and ordered her to stop praying in her home,”
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 09:07:33 Reply Private Reply
#3: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#2)
Sounds like the lady is a retard. If it is as I described.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 09:13:26 Reply Private Reply
#4: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#3)
Apparently you believe that someone is only "allowed" to pray if they receive permission from the State.
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 09:30:12 Reply Private Reply
#5: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#4)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 10:11:19 Reply Private Reply
#6: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#5)
“Prayer is essential to Ms. Sause’s faith and everyday life,” Stephanie Taub, associate counsel for First Liberty Institute, said in a prepared statement. “The government’s argument that the First Amendment only allows an individual to choose a religion, but not to fully exercise that faith, is a blatant misstatement of the law.”
The organization said the woman was home late at night when police demanded to come into her apartment.
They explained, “She alleges that they harassed her, saying that the Constitution is ‘just a piece of paper’ that ‘doesn’t work here’ and telling her to prepare to go to jail.
Terrified, Ms. Sause asked one of the officers if she could pray. After being told she could, she knelt in silent prayer, only to have another officer enter the room and order her to stop praying. Only at the end of the encounter did they tell her that they were there because of a minor noise complaint that her radio was too loud.”
They should have told her to turn down the radio, and then left her alone.
Cops have no right to demand that you stop praying in your own home.
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 10:23:15 Reply Private Reply
#7: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#6)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 10:43:25 Reply Private Reply
#8: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#7)
The cops should have told her FROM OUTSIDE HER HOUSE to turn it down and then leave.
They had no probable cause to enter her home in the first place - and to DEMAND that she stop praying is a clear violation of her First Amendment rights.
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 10:51:10 Reply Private Reply
#9: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#8)
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites. are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and. in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:01:14 Reply Private Reply
#10: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#9)
Seriously?
You know that for a fact do you?
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites. are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and. in the corners of the streets,
She was in HER OWN HOME!
I see only one hypocrite here.
The cops had NO BUSINESS inside her home once the noise complaint had been rectified.
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 11:13:40 Reply Private Reply
#11: Fred Mertz To: Deckard (#10)
Good one!
Fred Mertz posted on 2018-02-02 11:14:53 Reply Private Reply
#12: Deckard To: Fred Mertz (#11)
I felt kinda bad denigrating him like that.
If it had been Gatlin, he would have claimed that the cops "feared for their lives" from a harmless woman praying - her Bible could have been a deadly weapon.
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 11:18:08 Reply Private Reply
#13: Fred Mertz To: Deckard (#12)
Fred Mertz posted on 2018-02-02 11:35:03 Reply Private Reply
#14: Deckard To: Fred Mertz (#13)
Heck - I'm surprised they just didn't shoot her!
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 11:38:16 Reply Private Reply
#15: Pinguinite To: Deckard (#0)
Certainly choosing to start praying cannot be conducted solely for the purpose of delaying a legit law enforcement action. In this case however, the woman asked if she could and the cops allowed it, suggesting there was no legit enforcement action in progress.
If true, this shows willful intent to disregard her constitutionally protected right to pray.
And they did not inform her of the reason for being present until after they were in her home. If the cops were simply responding on a noise complaint, then they handled the whole thing completely wrong.
Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-02 11:38:19 Reply Private Reply
#16: Deckard To: Pinguinite (#15)
Exactly - once the woman was informed that her radio was too loud (which should have been done through the door) and she complied - there was no longer any reason for them to be there.
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 11:40:22 Reply Private Reply
#17: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#14)
Is that really your true feelings deckard?
Because if it is your brain is malfunctioning.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:41:35 Reply Private Reply
#18: A K A Stone To: Pinguinite (#15)
That was my take on it. I could be wrong but probably not.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:42:34 Reply Private Reply
#19: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#10)
You know for a fact the woman told the one hundred percent truth?
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:45:02 Reply Private Reply
#20: Fred Mertz To: A K A Stone (#17)
Tell us again, Gatlin, how you think the woman is retarded. Thanks.
Fred Mertz posted on 2018-02-02 11:45:11 Reply Private Reply
#21: Deckard To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#18)
The Law Enforcement action should have been concluded once she was informed of the complaint, from outside her home - the cops had no business or right to enter her home without a warrant.
My take on it was that they heard the music, which was most likely religious in nature, and decided to enter the home with the sole purpose of harassing the homeowner.
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 11:46:40 Reply Private Reply
#22: A K A Stone To: Fred Mertz (#20)
What part of that do you not understand kimosabe.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:48:39 Reply Private Reply
#23: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#21)
How do you know she didn't let them in? You don't.
This is petty. Deckard you should get a life and quit worrying about every little petty inconvenience that happens in America.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:50:59 Reply Private Reply
#24: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#21)
Your brain makes a lot of assumptions then treats them as fact.
Just an observation.
It is admirable that you care about injustice. I do too. But some of the stuff you post is beyond petty.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:53:34 Reply Private Reply
#25: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#22)
The cops were there for a noise complaint - they should have had her turn down the radio and then LEFT.
You pretend to be praying and are to busy to talk to the police.
That's the second time you've tried to claim that she was pretending.
She was under no obligation to talk to them after the noise complaint had been taken care of.
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 11:53:50 Reply Private Reply
#26: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#24)
Yeah - I'm sorry you feel that cops violating a praying woman's First Amendment rights is "petty".
Deckard posted on 2018-02-02 11:55:01 Reply Private Reply
#27: Fred Mertz To: A K A Stone (#22)
I'll agree with you, she screwed herself by answering the door.
Fred Mertz posted on 2018-02-02 11:56:00 Reply Private Reply
#28: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#25)
No you don't set the rules for police encounters.
They have a right to ask her why her radio is disturbing the neighbors.
What kind of idiot goes and prays when the police come to tell you to turn your music down?
An idiot that is who.
She should have just complied and they would have left.
Did the officer make a stupid statement. Yes, but it is petty.
I've wasted enough time on this insignificant incident.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:57:15 Reply Private Reply
#29: A K A Stone To: Fred Mertz (#27)
I've not answered the door for cops before. They left.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:58:10 Reply Private Reply
#30: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#26)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-02 11:58:47 Reply Private Reply
#31: Fred Mertz To: A K A Stone (#29)
Fred Mertz posted on 2018-02-02 11:59:41 Reply Private Reply
#32: Pinguinite To: Deckard (#21)
Yes, for a noise complaint, there was no reason for the cops to even enter her home. They should have knocked, introduced themselves, and then informed her immediately why they were there and asked her to turn her music down, assuming she was the cause of that complaint. Only after that, if she refused, would they possibly have cause to seek entry.
It appears harassment was the cause of the the suit against the cops. The not permitting her to pray seems to be the lynchpin of that harassment, and is being used as a 1st amendment violation.
Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-02 12:09:21 Reply Private Reply
#33: Pinguinite To: A K A Stone (#18)
Presumably, if the woman was praying solely for the purpose of delaying such legit action, the 10th circuit court would have cited this in their ruling, but it seems they didn't, instead assuming that the cops did indeed violate her 1st Amendment rights. Again, she asked permission to pray and the cops granted it. Maybe they shouldn't have citing time constraints, or maybe they didn't expect her to do more than a 30 second prayer, but if so, that was their mistake, and it seems they didn't cite any time issue in interrupting her.
From all appearances this was a harassment case and is being pursued as such, and the refusal to allow her to pray is the catalyst of that harassment case.
Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-02 12:16:38 Reply Private Reply