News @ ID SCOTUS - Tougher to Sue Police Officers

Discussion in 'News @ ID' started by Bleys, Dec 14, 2004.

  1. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    Monday SCOTUS made it more difficult to sue a police officer. The decision which was handed down with only 1 dissenting opinion involved the case of Brosseau v. Haugen.

    The plaintiff (victim) sued the officer on the grounds that she violated his 4th amendment rights of unreasonable search and seizure. A lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, but the Naughty Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took up the case and found 2-1 that the plaintiff was entitled to have his case heard before a jury.

    Five appellate judges have since disagreed with the 9th's decision and the case ended up before the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court decision to reject Haugen's right to sue the police officer who shot him. They stated that the officer deserved to be shielded even if her actions may not have been correct.

    The justices noted:

    "Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted," the court wrote. Brosseau saw Haugen as "a disturbed felon, set on avoiding capture" who may have plowed his car into others in his path, the court said.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    Does this decision set a bad precedent and give police too much discretion on when to use deadly force?

    Or should a police officer be given such latitude to prevent a potentially dangerous individual from escaping and possibly doing harm to others?

    B.

    LA Times story
     
  2. marg6043

    marg6043 Premium Member

    I guess we are becoming popular with "intentions off" I guess when the guy got into his car and got shot, the excused was that he may have "intentions off" causing harm into others by his reckless actions.

    So I guess we will see more or more actions agaisnt each other in this country base on "intentions off" causing harm to others.

    Now does that merrit a shot in the back, I don't think so but that is just personal oppinion.
     
  3. pineappleupsidedown

    pineappleupsidedown Premium Member

    "minority report" here we come...

    ---pineapple
     
  4. SubVolitional

    SubVolitional Member

    I'll work on the citations, pun not intended, but in some areas we already have the "thought police"!
     
  5. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    I heard Bush is planning to make it impossible to sue Corporation/Company. Like McDonald for example. What does that mean? We can't sue cop, we can't sue corporation.

    Soon we might not be able to sue anything...
     
  6. Hello board. I feel that we are becoming if we are not yet, a sue everyone country. I feel we should sue when it comes to negligent behaviour. In Back To The Future 2, "Doc" said the legal system works alot quicker now that they have abolished all lawyers. Everyone has seen the commercials; for example: Did you get in an accident and you want what is rightfully yours well call 555-1212 and telll them you mean business. Is this we have become? Officers should not be any different than us(citizens), except to perform their job. Let us not forget the infamous Rodney King, he was a drug user but noone desererves that. At the same time cant we be safe from crime, blue or white collared and still be happy? " Cant we get along?:yes: