Law enforcement officers sometimes make split-second decisions that turn out to be wrong. But in the case of Sylvia Gonzalez, the mayor, police chief and special detectives spent weeks figuring out how to retaliate against her, a retiree who promised reform when she ran for City Council in Castle Hills, Texas. .
After Gonzalez was elected, she faced a deliberate, systematic, and long-term effort to silence her. She even spent a day in jail for false allegations.
But when Gonzalez sued for violating her First Amendment right to criticize her persecutors, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her case.
The mayor and his accomplices claimed “qualified immunity” as part of their defense. This is a judicially established principle that protects public officials from lawsuits unless victims can prove that past litigation “clearly established” that the abuse was unconstitutional.
The court ruled that public servants are entitled to this get-out-of-jail card because they sometimes need to think quickly. If first responders, like everyone else, have to answer split-second decisions, they can hesitate in tense situations, and too much second-guessing can kill people.
At least, that’s how the story goes. but “unexplainable” A new report from our public interest law firm, the Justice Institute, challenges this idea. This study explains how qualified immunity works in practice in federal appellate courts using the largest collection of qualified immunity appeals in history, covering an 11-year period from 2010 to 2020. .
Although the most common defendants were law enforcement officers, many such appeals did not even involve police. In his 21% of cases, the only defendants were other government officials such as mayors, city administrators, university and school officials, and prosecutors. Many of these incidents involved planned retaliation against civilians or fellow government officials.
For example, if a social worker repeatedly I was sexually harassed The California woman offered a qualified immunity defense in court. University administrators oversaw sham hearings; expel a student Graduated from a university in Ohio. The borough council president put pressure on the local prison system: terminate the contract with political opponents in Pennsylvania.and health officials was fired Employee because he refused to cancel a necessary medical appointment in Arkansas.
None of these government employees were police officers. No one could make instant decisions. Still, all received qualified immunity.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has previously questioned the one-size-fits-all approach to qualified immunity.Writing about the First Amendment case In relation to university censorship, he asks: “Why should university employees who have time to make calculated choices about enacting or enforcing unconstitutional policies receive the same protections as police officers who make split-second decisions to use force in dangerous situations?” ”
That’s a good question.
Even in appeals involving the police, there are many different types of charges. According to the report, only 23% of appeals (less than one in four) involve police for allegations of excessive use of force. A similar number of cases involve claims of false arrest, but decisions are less often made on the spot.
Officers conducted a thorough investigation, consulted attorneys, issued a news release, and obtained three warrants before arresting Anthony Novak in Parma, Ohio. What is his alleged crime? Created a parody Facebook page mocking local police.
A jury found Mr. Novak not guilty, but only after he spent four days in jail and endured a grueling trial. More than five months passed between his first Facebook post and his acquittal, enough time for the police to admit their despicability. But when Novak fired back with the First Amendment; lawsuithis tormentors received qualified immunity.
The retribution against Gonzalez also took place in slow motion. After the mayor and her accomplices planned to jail her on her trumped-up charges of tampering with government records, they had some time to sleep before moving forward with their plan. After Gonzalez turned herself in, the city handcuffed her, put her in an orange prison shirt, and released her booking photo to the media.
Unlike Novak’s case, hers is still alive. The U.S. Supreme Court (the same judicial body that created the “clearly established” rule in 1982) agreed Consider questions from her case. Oral argument is scheduled for March 20th.
Win or lose, Gonzalez will receive justice. So do all those who face calculated government abuse.
Elise Smith Paul is a legal research and policy attorney at the Institute for Justice and co-author of “.unexplainable” Darryl James said, Institute of Justice.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
