SCOTUS gives cops carte blanche

[bernorange 8362]

Quote

 The First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for government officials to retaliate against you because they dislike your speech. At the same time, federal law gives you the right to sue state officials for compensation if they violate constitutional rights such as your right to free speech. But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court invented a rule that will often allow police officers to arrest people in retaliation for disfavored speech without liability.

By enabling police officers to target viewpoints they dislike with near impunity, the decision could be catastrophic for protesters and the press. The justices, meanwhile, didn’t even try to ground their decision in the text or history of the statute they were interpreting. Instead, the court was surprisingly frank about its rationale: The justices simply don’t want police officers to have to defend themselves in court against these types of allegations.

In Nieves v. Bartlett, a divided court ruled that individuals can’t sue police officers for retaliatory arrest if those officers had probable cause to arrest them for any crime, no matter how minor—and that’s true even if the real reason for the arrest was speech the officers didn’t like. In other words, if you are jaywalking in violation of a local ordinance, officers can arrest you without fear of liability even if they’re making the arrest only because you’re participating in a Black Lives Matter demonstration or wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap.

Because local laws are full of minor infractions, like “loitering,” that are frequently violated without incident, police will often have a pretext to arrest people engaged in speech the officers don’t like. By immunizing such abuse, Nieves may have devastating effects on demonstrators, press photographers, and anyone who wants to exercise their speech rights in public, like the right to film the police or verbally challenge officer misconduct. The power to arrest is a potent tool for suppressing speech because even if charges are later dropped, arrestees must undergo the ordeal—and dangers—of being booked and jailed, and they may have to disclose the arrest on future job and housing applications, among other ramifications.

Congress long ago recognized that making officers financially liable is the most effective way to deter such misconduct. And that’s why a federal law called Section 1983 enables lawsuits against state officers for violating constitutional rights. This landmark statute was enacted during Reconstruction when Southern states were refusing to respect basic liberties. As one congressman said, the federal government could not directly compel these states to fall in line, but it could “deal with the offenders” by giving “the injured party … an original action in our Federal courts.” Section 1983 therefore authorizes suits for violations of “any rights” that are “secured by the Constitution.”

The Nieves decision takes a red pen to the statute Congress wrote, based on some justices’ fear that police actions taken “during a legitimate arrest could land an officer in years of litigation.” ...

More:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/supreme-court-nieves-police-abuse-case.amp

Perhaps if the justices were so worried about LEOs being embroiled in defending their actions, they should look at measures that curb their penchant for violating people ('s rights).

[DigglerontheHoof 21202]

One more step towards NAZI Amerika.

[SubliminalHorn 6806]

Thank you, trumpkins. You have the court you’ve wanted for a long time. Hope it was worth the soul of America. 

[Crusher 127]

"In Nieves v. Bartlett, a divided court ruled that individuals can’t sue police officers for retaliatory arrest if those officers had probable cause to arrest them for any crime, no matter how minor—and that’s true even if the real reason for the arrest was speech the officers didn’t like. In other words, if you are jaywalking in violation of a local ordinance, officers can arrest you without fear of liability even if they’re making the arrest only because you’re participating in a Black Lives Matter demonstration or wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap. "

Simple. DON"T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW WHILE PROTESTING. Just because you are "triggered" does not make you immune from the same laws that the rest of us have to adhere to everyday.

[Crusher 127]

It has always been this way. If you are an asshole and treat cops like they are assholes you will probally be arrested for some other law that you happened to break while being an asshole.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Crusher

[VRHorn 718]

2 minutes ago, Crusher said:

"In Nieves v. Bartlett, a divided court ruled that individuals can’t sue police officers for retaliatory arrest if those officers had probable cause to arrest them for any crime, no matter how minor—and that’s true even if the real reason for the arrest was speech the officers didn’t like. In other words, if you are jaywalking in violation of a local ordinance, officers can arrest you without fear of liability even if they’re making the arrest only because you’re participating in a Black Lives Matter demonstration or wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap. "

Simple. DON"T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW WHILE PROTESTING. Just because you are "triggered" does not make you immune from the same laws that the rest of us have to adhere to everyday.

Simple indeed- there go sit ins, marches, and basically all civil disobedience.

Only a true simpleton would completely miss the more broad implications here...

[Crusher 127]

Just now, VRHorn said:

Simple indeed- there go sit ins, marches, and basically all civil disobedience.

Only a true simpleton would completely miss the more broad implications here...

The implication here is that if you knowingly break the law during your protest you will be arrested. And you can't sue the cops for doing their duty because you knowingly broke said law.

Pretty fucking simple to me.

[formermav43 4606]

9 minutes ago, Crusher said:

"In Nieves v. Bartlett, a divided court ruled that individuals can’t sue police officers for retaliatory arrest if those officers had probable cause to arrest them for any crime, no matter how minor—and that’s true even if the real reason for the arrest was speech the officers didn’t like. In other words, if you are jaywalking in violation of a local ordinance, officers can arrest you without fear of liability even if they’re making the arrest only because you’re participating in a Black Lives Matter demonstration or wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap. "

Simple. DON"T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW WHILE PROTESTING. Just because you are "triggered" does not make you immune from the same laws that the rest of us have to adhere to everyday.

But these minor violations AREN’T laws the rest of us have to adhere to. That’s precisely the point.

[Crusher 127]

Just now, formermav43 said:

But these minor violations AREN’T laws the rest of us have to adhere to. That’s precisely the point.

Are you sure about that? If I go to Downtown Houston and start jaywalking on every street and disrupting traffic on a regular basis I will be arrested. Protesting or not.

[David Dennison 18924]

10 minutes ago, Crusher said:

"In Nieves v. Bartlett, a divided court ruled that individuals can’t sue police officers for retaliatory arrest if those officers had probable cause to arrest them for any crime, no matter how minor—and that’s true even if the real reason for the arrest was speech the officers didn’t like. In other words, if you are jaywalking in violation of a local ordinance, officers can arrest you without fear of liability even if they’re making the arrest only because you’re participating in a Black Lives Matter demonstration or wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap. "

Simple. DON"T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW WHILE PROTESTING. Just because you are "triggered" does not make you immune from the same laws that the rest of us have to adhere to everyday.

It's too bad the cops aren't compelled to apply the law equitably.

 

[Anastasis 23475]

13 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Thank you, trumpkins. You have the court you’ve wanted for a long time. Hope it was worth the soul of America. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined except as to Part II–D. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

 

[Crusher 127]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's too bad the cops aren't compelled to apply the law equitably.

 

Yes it is. It's an imperfect world. People are imperfect. Sometimes people it get wrong. Sometimes they get right.

Let's hope it is more of the later than the former.

[F250 28784]

25 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Thank you, trumpkins. You have the court you’ve wanted for a long time. Hope it was worth the soul of America. 

This is a terrible take. Read the article before posting next time.

[formermav43 4606]

4 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Are you sure about that? If I go to Downtown Houston and start jaywalking on every street and disrupting traffic on a regular basis I will be arrested. Protesting or not.

That wasn’t the example given. You aren’t going to be arrested for a singular instance of jaywalking, which was the hypothetical. Yes, I’m sure about that.

[formermav43 4606]

31 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Thank you, trumpkins. You have the court you’ve wanted for a long time. Hope it was worth the soul of America. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch, to his credit, was having none of this, insisting in dissent that there is “no legitimate basis for engrafting a no-probable-cause requirement onto a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim.” Adopting a central point of our amicus brief, Gorsuch explained that “a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim serves a different purpose” than claims based on a lack of legal authority to arrest and that “that purpose does not depend on the presence or absence of probable cause.”

The only silver lining in all this is that the court did create an exception to its harsh new rule. Even if police have probable cause to arrest, a plaintiff can still prevail by showing that the police “typically exercise their discretion” not to make arrests in similar circumstances. It’s unclear how this vague exception will be applied by the lower courts and whether it will have enough teeth to prevent cops from feeling free to operate with impunity. Gorsuch expressed optimism that the exception would be read broadly and “commonsensically” in future cases. Let’s hope he’s right.

[David Dennison 18924]

8 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Yes it is. It's an imperfect world. People are imperfect. Sometimes people it get wrong. Sometimes they get right.

Let's hope it is more of the later than the former.

This is very convenient.

[SubliminalHorn 6806]

11 minutes ago, F250 said:

This is a terrible take. Read the article before posting next time.

Tee hee and as I was typing it I was thinking i should read this but I’m champagne drunk so no. Apologies. Trumpkins still sold out America’s soul. 

[Crusher 127]

Just now, David Dennison said:

This is very convenient.

Not if you fall into the category of the former.

But hell, you can hide in house all day or at work and minimize that risk if you choose. I do. Or you could venture out and make you case. Just be aware of the consequences and the fact that you don't get a payday by suing the Police for doing their job.

[mchookem 16336]

that's an interesting breakdown of the judges. looks like it wasn't your normal 5-4 vote, they were all over the place. how often does that happen nowadays. 

[David Dennison 18924]

3 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Not if you fall into the category of the former.

But hell, you can hide in house all day or at work and minimize that risk if you choose. I do. Or you could venture out and make you case. Just be aware of the consequences and the fact that you don't get a payday by suing the Police for doing their job.

It would be nice if the police were compelled to their job equitably.

[Crusher 127]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It would be nice if the police were compelled to their job equitably.

Like I said. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Just like anything else in life. Of course I would hope that the Police use proper restraint when dealing with people out  to express their First Amendment rights. But, your 1st Amendment rights don't always outweigh other laws you have broke (i.e. Yelling Fire in a theater).

Edited June 1, 2019 by Crusher

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

42 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Are you sure about that? If I go to Downtown Houston and start jaywalking on every street and disrupting traffic on a regular basis I will be arrested. Protesting or not.

Maybe, but if you’re white you’re probably going to get away with a lot more before you’re arrested.  If you’re a black dude, you’ll not only get arrested, but probably have a firearm pointed at you first.  I love your utopian world where it’s just a coin toss on whether or not you’re treated differently. 

[Crusher 127]

8 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Maybe, but if you’re white you’re probably going to get away with a lot more before you’re arrested.  If you’re a black dude, you’ll not only get arrested, but probably have a firearm pointed at you first.  I love your utopian world where it’s just a coin toss on whether or not you’re treated differently. 

Bull shit. If am white I will definitely be arrested before some random black dude doing the same. They assume I have the money to pay my way out rather than some black dude who has been arrested multiple times for the same crime and who just wants a baloney sandwich and to get out of the cold / heat. 

If you think the Police don't work on money you are wrong. That's why San Francisco and LA are about to have a real breakout of the Bubonic Plague this summer, The plague? Are fucking kidding me? 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Crusher

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

1 minute ago, Crusher said:

Bull shit. If am white I will definitely be arrested before some random black dude doing the same. They assume I have the money to pay my way out rather than some black dude who has been arrested multiple times for the same crime and who just wants a baloney sandwich and to get out of the cold / heat. 

If you think the Police don't work on money you are wrong. That's why San Francisco and LA are about to have a real breakout of the Bubonic Plague this summer, The plague? Are fucking kidding me? 

Hahahahahahahahaha

[Anastasis 23475]

36 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Tee hee and as I was typing it I was thinking i should read this but I’m champagne drunk so no. Apologies. Trumpkins still sold out America’s soul. 

Deep Eddy lemon and topo, but I can still muster an effort to skim the syllabus.  

[Anastasis 23475]

3 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Bull shit. If am white I will definitely be arrested before some random black dude doing the same. They assume I have the money to pay my way out rather than some black dude who has been arrested multiple times for the same crime and who just wants a baloney sandwich and to get out of the cold / heat. 

If you think the Police don't work on money you are wrong. That's why San Francisco and LA are about to have a real breakout of the Bubonic Plague this summer, The plague? Are fucking kidding me? 

 

[Anastasis 23475]

Oh, and the so called conservative justices are fucking traitors.  Especially the departed Scalia.  They, with few exceptions, bust out the knee pads when the police state is juxtaposed to civil liberty protections.  

[Michael Knight 12988]

Crusher ladies and gentlemen 

[Crusher 127]

2 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Hahahahahahahahaha

Laugh.. You are a doctor. You better than anyone should know what happens when thousands of unvaccinated people show up in a  established society who have no immunity the ancient sickness they carry.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/dr-drew-los-angeles-typhoid-fever/2019/05/31/id/918397/

Fuck, are we not only allowing this to happen some Politicians are encouraging it. ….?

[cactusflinthead 27601]

I thought that was part of it. Go protest and see if you get arrested. That's the disobedient part of Civil Disobedience. Break some laws and they will lock you up. Even for something minor. But, it's worth it because you got out there and marched.

I'm going to need a few more clicks than the slate article before I get bent out of shape. 

 

 

[Michael Knight 12988]

2 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Laugh.. You are a doctor. You better than anyone should know what happens when thousands of unvaccinated people show up in a  established society who have no immunity the ancient sickness they carry.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/dr-drew-los-angeles-typhoid-fever/2019/05/31/id/918397/

Fuck, are we not only allowing this to happen some Politicians are encouraging it. ….?

So you want police to arrest rats?

[Crusher 127]

2 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Laugh.. You are a doctor. You better than anyone should know what happens when thousands of unvaccinated people show up in a  established society who have no immunity the ancient sickness they carry.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/dr-drew-los-angeles-typhoid-fever/2019/05/31/id/918397/

Fuck, are we not only allowing this to happen some Politicians are encouraging it. ….?

Sorry. didn't mean to thread shit. If we want to talk about this we should start another thread.

[Crusher 127]

Just now, Michael Knight said:

So you want police to arrest rats?

Yes. Do something. As of now there is no official pest control in LA. The 2nd largest city in the union has no pest control according to the article I posted. They are proposing health care for all but can't pay to kill a rat?

[Michael Knight 12988]

2 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Yes. Do something. As of now there is no official pest control in LA. The 2nd largest city in the union has no pest control according to the article I posted. They are proposing health care for all but can't pay to kill a rat?

You realize the reason rats are on the rise is due to climate change, so do you want the government to do something about climate change now?

[Crusher 127]

3 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

You realize the reason rats are on the rise is due to climate change, so do you want the government to do something about climate change now?

First, I would kill the fucking rats. Then deal with climate change if we can?

Edited June 1, 2019 by Crusher

[David Dennison 18924]

27 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Bull shit. If am white I will definitely be arrested before some random black dude doing the same. They assume I have the money to pay my way out rather than some black dude who has been arrested multiple times for the same crime and who just wants a baloney sandwich and to get out of the cold / heat. 

If you think the Police don't work on money you are wrong. That's why San Francisco and LA are about to have a real breakout of the Bubonic Plague this summer, The plague? Are fucking kidding me? 

Everything in this post is wrong.

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Everything in this post is wrong.

Thanks . That was not my intent.

Would you care to point out some examples so I could be properly instructed. Just point them out for rest of us plebes who weren't born with the grace of intelligence that apparently you were.

[Gatorubet 30246]

The Jefferson "Tree of Liberty needs to be watered..." comment seems more and more like a reasonable approach.

[TexLonghorn 5671]

21 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Bull shit. If am white I will definitely be arrested before some random black dude doing the same. They assume I have the money to pay my way out rather than some black dude who has been arrested multiple times for the same crime and who just wants a baloney sandwich and to get out of the cold / heat. 

If the white person is more likely to be arrested in your opinion because the police would rather arrest the one 'who has the money to pay their way out', then why is it the black person in your example who has "been arrested multiple times"?  Shouldn't that be the more-likely-to-be-arrested white person?  

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by TexLonghorn

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, TexLonghorn said:

If the white person is more likely to be arrested in your opinion because the police would rather arrest the one 'who has the money to pay their way out', then why in it the black person in your example who has "been arrested multiple times"?  Shouldn't that be the more-likely-to-be-arrested white person?  

 

Thanks for the reply.

Maybe I should have said reprimanded rather than arrested. Point taken.

My point in the original post was Police in any town , large or small work for the city or county. The city being politicians tend to fuck shit up. They love in the black balance sheets that means despite not doing their job and most likely screwing their secretaries at lunch they still get a raise and a promotion.

It's all about the Benjamin's.

[bernorange 8362]

Whole lot of peeps seem to be viewing this issue with tunnel vision on the issue of protests.  This ruling is much broader than that.  Anyone remember Antonio Beuhler's New Year's arrest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Buehler#New_Year's_Day_2012_incident )?  Folks wanting to film public spaces where police might be abusing their authority just got the rug pulled out from under them.  Cops want to shut you up, they know they face no consequences now.

[TwiceHorn 31498]

Here's a little more nuanced reporting. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/opinion-analysis-the-first-amendment-probable-cause-and-questions-left-unanswered/

Also, I think as a practical matter, a plaintiff in one of these cases has always had to prove that the probable cause was bs, which is not strictly an absence of probable cause, but I think the difference is more theoretical than real.

And, in the final analysis, while cops certainly need some comeuppance, a rule that permits a plaintiff to go to a jury only with a subjective idea that the cop REALLY arrested me as retaliation and not for the crime he had probable cause for, could make a well-functioning police apparatus grind to a halt.  That doesn't mean that we have a well-functioning apparatus, but this probably wasn't the mechanism to fix that anyway.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31498]

Actually studied the decision some and I think Roberts' exception is unduly narrow.  Like Gorsuch, I think any objective evidence that the probable cause was a pretext should suffice to create an exception to probable cause = no retaliation suit, which is probably realistically how it was before this decision.  instead of only evidence that the arresting offense is not made in normal circumstances.

 

Also note that the worry seems to be that probable cause for chickenshit offenses like loitering can always be made up.  While true, it seems that prosecutors tend not to bring these charges and this is just a civil suit trying to make the cop pay.  The damages for this kind of thing would be nominal and other than the hassle of having to sit through litigation, was never likely to bankrupt or financially damage dickhead cops, notwithstanding municipal "insurance" coverage for these. And, as with many things, body cams will curtail the ability of cops to make up PC even for chickenshit misdemeanors.

[XYZ 2154]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, as with many things, body cams will curtail the ability of cops to make up PC even for chickenshit misdemeanors.

Not if they are turned off due to “malfunctions”.