Qualified Immunity

searcher said:

A Houston Man Was Jailed for Weeks in a Case of Mistaken Identity. But Holding Officials Accountable Will Be Nearly Impossible Thanks to the Supreme Court​

Imagine police imprison you for a crime someone with the same name as you committed. You plead your innocence to the authorities, the judge, and your attorney but to no avail. Days go by, and ultimately, you’re able to prove your innocence, but the threat of being arrested again for someone else’s crime still looms over you.

That nightmare became a reality for Jabon “James” Barrett this past winter and for David Sosa starting in 2014. Both men were mistakenly arrested and jailed, in one case multiple times, because they shared a name with someone who had an outstanding warrant. Both cases show just how easily someone can be stripped of their rights, and how hard it can be to hold officials accountable for their mistakes.

Barrett’s ordeal began one night last November when Houston police spotted a gun in his car at a gas station. Despite being a military veteran with no criminal record and a license to carry a gun, Houston police arrested him believing he was someone else. That individual, who went by the alias “James Barrett,” had a decade-old conviction in Florida. Houston authorities made little effort to verify if they had the right man. Instead, they charged Barrett with unlawfully carrying a weapon and later, a more severe charge that carried a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

More:

A Houston Man Was Jailed for Weeks in a Case of Mistaken Identity. But Holding Officials Accountable Will Be Nearly Impossible Thanks to the Supreme Court - Institute for Justice

Imagine police imprison you for a crime someone with the same name as you committed. You plead your innocence to the authorities, the judge, and […]

ij.org

Click to expand...

Thats exactly what's happened to by friend. Ultimately the charges were all dropped against him when they realized they had the wrong individual. 10k in attorney fees later, loss of income from work as well as being locked up for 3 days and the entire ordeal dragged out for almost a year. Yep, no way to sue the system.

That's kinda what needs to be addressed, isn't it?

A method of redress from the system.

NOT turning all police into ambulance-chaser bait - create the Derek-Chauvin Syndrome, have all cops fear for their own lives for doing their jobs.

A little better screening of candidates at hiring time, wouldn't hurt, either. And again, making their daily job activities a personal danger, doesn't draw the good people.


Did we learn nothing from "Defund the Police"?

searcher said:

Same as above but a different state.

Fifth Circuit Declines to Rehear Innocent Woman’s Case Seeking Compensation After SWAT Team Destroyed House; Woman Will Petition Supreme Court​

NEW ORLEANS—On Wednesday, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case of an innocent woman who is seeking compensation after a SWAT team destroyed her McKinney, Texas home while pursuing a fugitive in 2020. Vicki Baker, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), will now file a petition with the United States Supreme Court, asking the justices to hear her case.

“The decision not to rehear Vicki’s case is certainly disappointing, but the fact that some judges dissented provides a platform to continue fighting for her constitutional rights,” said IJ Attorney Jeff Redfern. “The Fifth Amendment requires the government to provide just compensation when it destroys private property for a public purpose, as the SWAT team did when it destroyed Vicki’s home to get a fugitive off the streets.”

In Wednesday’s decision, 11 judges denied Vicki’s attempt to have her case reheard, while 6 judges voted in favor of rehearing her case.

“There is no doubt the McKinney community was better off because its officers ravaged Baker’s home. But it is at least peculiar to say that because the officers’ conduct benefited the community, the community can avoid compensating Baker for the inconveniences she incurred on its behalf,” wrote the dissenting judges. “Thus, it should have been the City’s burden to establish its conduct was excepted from the strictures of the just compensation requirement.”

More:

Fifth Circuit Declines to Rehear Innocent Woman’s Case Seeking Compensation After SWAT Team Destroyed House; Woman Will Petition Supreme Court - Institute for Justice

NEW ORLEANS—On Wednesday, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case of an innocent woman who is seeking compensation after […]

ij.org

Click to expand...

Update:

Once upon a time, the system was self-correcting.

One local (kinda) example: Bannack, Montana.

Case in point: One Sheriff Henry Plummer.

Plummer was a bad boy. And boy he was - he was in his mid-twenties. He had robbed his way across the West, from (IIRC) Texas, up into Montana. He liked to work stage routes near gold and silver mines.

He stumbled into Bannack, a stranger...and met up with an adversary. I don't recall if they were old foes or if they became foes over whiskey. But this local bad guy had the town in fear; and Plummer sent him straight to the Hereafter.

Plummer was a hero. The town was looking for a sheriff - not sure why - but by popular acclaim, Henry was nominated and confirmed and given his badge.

Only trouble was, he hadn't wrapped up his stage-robbing industry. His confederates were still hiding in the scrub; and there wasn't a practical way to bring them in and make them deputies.

So, Henry moonlighted. Wore two hats at once, along with a mask.

And to make a long story short, while relieving a stagecoach of its cargo, someone recognized the man in control as the new Sheriff. A posse was formed, and the Sheriff, and his dark deputies, were all brought in.

The underlings were given drumhead trials and hanged. Plummer didn't even get that - he just got taken to the makeshift gallows and given a slow-drop hanging. Once he'd choked out, his body was thrown in a ravine for the coyotes.

THAT...is redress of corrupt law.

Why doesn't it happen today? Because, since the Grate Society, MOST "Local" LE money comes from Uncle Sugar. And Uncle Sugar doesn't give things away - it's buying compliance. DEI, programs - such as SWAT; procedures. Deviate from our rulebook, and lose your green stream.

We could address THAT little problem - and then, when a police chief raids the wrong house, send the little chief to the Big House.

Obviously it was incorrect as to law, and communicated a price - a threat - for lawful or not-criminal action.

If a cop threatens a restaurant manager if he doesn't get a free lunch, he, too, will have no immunity.

This is common sense. EXECUTION OF HIS DUTIES. The Stuporeme Kourt just spelled out what should have been plainly understood - except by libburls, who make a fat living not understanding obvious things.

searcher said:

Related:

South Bend SWAT Destruction​

Amy Hadley watched in horror as her home was raided by police and destroyed in South Bend, Indiana, in June 2022. Over a year later, her family is still traumatized and their home still bears the scars of the raid. And all of this happened because police were searching for a man who was never in their home and who had no connection to Amy’s family.

Noah Hadley, just 15 at the time, was the only one there when police surrounded his home and started calling for occupants to come out. He followed their instructions and told them he was the only one in the house. Officers cuffed Noah and took him away without letting him call his mom.

Amy arrived on the scene shortly after the officers took her son away. A neighbor had called her, telling her about the commotion at her home. None of the officers believed Amy when she tried to explain that the officers had the wrong house. She watched from down the street as a SWAT team and other officers shattered windows with tear gas grenades, flooded the house with toxic fumes, upended furniture, tore down fixtures, punched holes in the walls, destroyed family photos and drawings, and rifled through the family’s belongings.

More:

South Bend SWAT Destruction - Institute for Justice

In South Bend, a SWAT team raided the wrong home, leaving a single mom with thousands of dollars in damage not covered by insurance. She is suing for compensation.

ij.org

Click to expand...

Update:

searcher said:

Update:

Innocent Woman Whose Home Was Destroyed by SWAT Team Petitions Supreme Court to Hear Case Seeking Compensation - Institute for Justice

WASHINGTON—Today, an innocent woman whose McKinney, Texas, home was destroyed by a SWAT team in 2020 asked the United States Supreme Court to hear her […]

ij.org

Click to expand...

Related:

SWAT Raids are Out of Control​

Jul 15, 2024

Imagine a SWAT team raids a house—battering doors, breaking windows, and coating everything inside with tear gas residue. Now imagine the SWAT team had the wrong address. Who do think would pay for the damage? If you said insurance, you’re probably wrong. If you said the city, you’re probably also wrong.

Today, IJ attorneys Jeff Redfern and Dylan Moore talk with us about this nightmare situation facing homeowners across America – and how the Institute for Justice is fighting to change it.

43:34

Vicki Baker SWAT Case: https://ij.org/case/texas-swat-destru...
Wrong House Raid: https://ij.org/case/texas-wrong-house...

So...start a move to fire police chiefs.

When you do...you will find the cold, dead hand of FedGov in the midst of it, handing out fiat to local police authorities.

Locally, you can try for a reform movement. A few cities have cut their FedGov bribery-payments to a minimum.

Nationally...reform IS NEEDED. Local government MUST be local. When it is not, you see what it becomes - a racialist, redistributive Socialist Police State.

searcher said:

Righting A Wrong House Raid​

April 30, 2024

Everyone knows to check that they’re in the right place when arriving somewhere new. Maybe look for the address or distinguishing features of the property. It’s just a basic life skill—not something the Supreme Court needs to explain. Still, the Fifth Circuit ruled that a SWAT commander couldn’t have known that he had to make sure he had the correct house before ordering a raid.

On March 27, 2019, a SWAT team assembled on the porch of the wrong house in Waxahachie, Texas. Lieutenant Mike Lewis realized the mistake just in time. He knew the suspected stash house was one door down. He just wasn’t sure which direction. The front-porch light on the house to his left obscured his view of its address. So, rather than go get a better look, he just guessed.

A chain-link fence should have blocked his team’s path to the front porch and the detached garage of the house they planned to raid. But the house they approached didn’t have a fence, or a front porch, or a garage. Instead, officers had to climb a truly enormous L-shaped wheelchair ramp that wasn’t supposed to be there.

Righting A Wrong House Raid - Institute for Justice

Everyone knows to check that they’re in the right place when arriving somewhere new. Maybe look for the address or distinguishing features of the property. […]

ij.org

SWAT Raid on 'WRONG HOUSE!' Dragging Through the Courts​

May 5, 2024

And very well could end up in the Supreme Court.

13:45

*Just my opinion, fwiw, I do not believe that the robed ones give two shits about the rights of American citizens.

Click to expand...

More:

SWAT Raided Her Home. It Was The Wrong House.​

Aug 1, 2024

Everyone who visits a home for the first time—including delivery drivers, plumbers, and Girl Scouts—knows that you have to make sure you have the right address before barging in. Somehow, Waxahachie Police Department (WPD) Lieutenant Mike Lewis didn’t get the memo. In the dead of night, Lewis directed a heavily armed SWAT team to storm a home in which the innocent Karen Jimerson was getting ready for bed while her loved ones slept.

https://ij.org/case/texas-wrong-house...

4:11


Lewis had every reason to know he directed his SWAT team to the wrong house. First off, he had a copy of the search warrant and photos of the suspected house, and Karen’s address was clearly affixed to the front of her home. Although he later reported that he “believed” the numbers on Karen’s home (593) matched the address on the warrant (573), Lewis admitted that he never got a good look at her address before ordering the raid. Even worse, Karen’s home and the target house looked very different—Karen’s house had an impossible-to-miss wheelchair ramp (which the target house lacked), while the target house had a perimeter fence, a porch, a detached garage, and stairs leading to the front door (which Karen’s house lacked).

Without double-checking Karen’s address or noticing the obvious physical differences between her house and the target house, Lewis ordered officers to “break and rake” her home. On Lewis’ command, officers busted down Karen’s door, detonated a flashbang grenade in her front yard, shattered her windows, and held her terrified family at gunpoint until another officer realized Lewis’ mistake. In the wake of the raid, an internal investigation found that Lewis “completely overlooked” the WPD’s “reasonable and normal protocol,” and Lewis was suspended without pay.

Still, when Karen and her family sued Lewis for violating their Fourth Amendment rights, a divided three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit ruled that qualified immunity shields him from accountability. According to the panel, Lewis didn’t have “fair notice” that ordering a warrantless no-knock raid on the wrong house violates the constitutional rights of the people inside.

The panel’s decision defies common sense and binding precedent. So Karen and her family have teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to ask the full Fifth Circuit to rehear their case. When an officer has detailed information describing the place to be searched—including photos and an address—but fails to confirm that information before raiding the wrong house, he should not be able to evade liability by invoking qualified immunity.

searcher said:

he later reported that he “believed” the numbers on Karen’s home (593) matched the address on the warrant (573),

Click to expand...

He couldn't tell the dif between a 7 and a nine? Sounds like he needs glasses.

Or an updated prescription.

Related (good ending)