Supreme Court often sides with police in misconduct cases, resulting in more police powers

MassPrivateI

The court often sides with police, and frequently at the behest of the Obama Justice Dept. where police groups saw Mr. Holder as an ally.

AG Eric Holder’s Justice Department has supported police officers every time an excessive-force case has made its way to arguments. Even as it has opened more than 20 civil rights investigations into local law enforcement practices, the Justice Department has made it harder for people to sue the police and that gives officers more discretion about when to fire their guns.  

Here are some recent disturbing Supreme Court rulings:

– The Supreme Court recently ruled that cops can be mistaken about the law and still perform a valid search.

– The Supreme Court ruled police cannot be sued for using force against people with mental disabilities.  A disturbing comment made by Justice Alito said police officers were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law barring their conduct. That’s our Supreme Court in a nut shell, if there are no laws barring police misconduct, too bad!

– The Supreme Court ruled that police ‘informational checkpoints’ are legal.

The Rutherford Institute lists more Supreme Court rulings that should make EVERYONE shudder:

– Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

– Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior.

– Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside. In Florida v. Harris (2013), a unanimous Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state.

– Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime.In Maryland v. King (2013), a divided Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA.

– Police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike. The Supreme Court declared in Arizona v. United States (2012) that Arizona police officers have broad authority to stop, search and question individuals—citizen and non-citizen alike.

– Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense.”  In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington (2012), the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a virtual strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks.

– Police can interrogate minors without their parents present. The Court threw out a lower court ruling in Camreta v. Greene (2011), which required government authorities to secure a warrant, a court order or parental consent before interrogating students at school. The ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students as wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement against the rights of the people.

– Police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law.The Supreme Court let stand a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Brooks v. City of Seattle(2012) in which police officers who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution.

– Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it. The Supreme Court ruled in Salinas v. Texas (2013) that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial.

– It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2004), a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute.

Neal Katyal, said that given the Justice Department’s oversight of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and federal agents, its “instinctive reaction” is to “support law enforcement interests.”

William Yeomans, an American University law professor said, “The institutional interests in support of law enforcement are very powerful and very real.”

Legal experts find that “there is built-in leeway for police, and the very breadth of this leeway is why criminal charges against police are so rare,” says Walter Katz, a police oversight lawyer who served on the Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review.

Discussing how the Supreme Court views police shootings Katz said, “there is just an underlying assumption that the officer did not engage in criminal activity.”

So, think twice before taking your case to the Supreme Court, the Feds only like to take cases they can win.

http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2015/06/supreme-court-often-sides-with-police.html