The Supreme Court has issued yet another decision shielding police officers from excessive force lawsuits.
Justices issued a per curiam opinion on Monday, in Hughes v. Kisela, siding in favor of a Tuscon, Ariz. police officer who shot a woman four times after responding to a 911 call about erratic behavior.
In issuing their ruing, SCOTUS reversed a Ninth Circuit decision, which said Andrew Kisela should face a civil jury trial brought by the woman he shot, Amy Hughes. Two liberal justices dissented: Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“Such a one-sided approach to qualified immunity transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers, gutting the deterrent effect of the Fourth Amendment,” Sotomayor wrote for the pair.
“It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished,” she also said.
In its ruling, the majority downplayed the significance of Hughes’ Constitutional rights.
“Here, the Court need not, and does not, decide whether Kisela violated the Fourth Amendment when he used deadly force against Hughes,” they wrote. “For even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred — a proposition that is not at all evident — on these facts Kisela was at least entitled to qualified immunity.”
Because the opinion was per curiam, there wasn’t an individual author assigned to the ruling.
The incident at the heart of the case occurred in May 2010. Kisela was among three officers responding to a 911 call about a woman acting erratically, cutting a tree with a kitchen knife.
When the officers arrived on the scene, they found Hughes holding a knife at her side, standing six feet from another woman; then-roommate Sharon Chadwick (Chadwick later testified she “was not the least bit threatened” by Hughes).
“Faced with these facts, the two other responding officers held their fire, and one testified that he ‘wanted to continue trying verbal command[s] and see if that would work,'” Sotomayor wrote. “But not Kisela. He thought it necessary to use deadly force, and so, without giving a warning that he would open fire, he shot Hughes four times, leaving her seriously injured.”
“If this account of Kisela’s conduct sounds unreasonable, that is because it was,” the Obama-appointee added.
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability arising from actions that occur on official duty. In recent years, it has been repeatedly invoked by the Supreme Court to quash litigation brought against police officers accused of using excessive force.
In May 2014, for example, Justices protected officers who shot and killed the driver and passenger in a car, after starting a high-speed pursuit over a broken headlight.
Then, in May 2015, the Supreme Court threw out another case that came from the Ninth Circuit. Justices ruled that two San Francisco police officers could not be sued for emptying five shots into a knife-wielding, mentally-ill woman, in her own room at a private group home at the time of the incident.
And in January 2017, SCOTUS stopped civil litigation against an officer who had arrived on the scene of a stand-off and fired a shotgun into a house without warning, sparking a fatal shoot-out.
“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Justices said on Monday, referring to the latter case.
Sotomayor, however, was left wondering what clearly established statutes were violated by Amy Hughes.
Of the police shooting victim, Sotomayor wrote: “[Hughes] posed no objective threat…had committed no crime, and appeared calm and collected during the police encounter.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.