Remember that Columbia MO SWAT raid that shot the family's dog and terrorized the family?

[Anti Federalist]

Civil suit against the cops thrown out by judge, force used was "proper".




Subjects of Missouri Drug Raid That Went Viral Have Their Civil Suit Dismissed


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc&feature=player_embedded

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/22/subjects-of-missouri-drug-raid-turned-vi

Lucy Steigerwald | November 22, 2011

Jonathan and Brittany Whitworth became inadvertent youtube stars last year thanks to the Columbia, Missouri Police Department. The footage of the February 2010 narcotics raid on the Whitworth home — filmed by the SWAT team themselves —has now been watched more than 1.8 million times.

But as Radley Balko noted in May 2010, this raid wasn't unique, in fact it was far less of a disaster than it could have been: the police announced their presence, no humans were killed or injured, and it was even the correct house, in that it contained the person listed on the warrant. (And indeed, Jonathan plead guilty and paid a $300 fine for possession of drug paraphernalia, The parents were initially charged with child endangerment. Which is hilarious, considering who was firing weapons in a house which contained a child.)

Still, Jonathan Whitworth's baffled yells and the horrible whimpering of his injured dog made this raid go viral in a way that most of the 150 daily SWAT raids never will.

Now the Whitworths' civil suit has been dismissed by a federal judge. According to the Columbia Daily Tribune:

[The judge] found few, if any, facts to support many of the allegations in the complaint. She also found cause for tactics used by officers to conduct the raid, force used against Jonathan Whitworth during his arrest and the actions toward the wife and son to be proper....

The lawsuit was seeking restitution for damages to personal property and medical and veterinary expenses. It was filed in September 2010 against the 12 police officers who were at the raid for their contribution toward an alleged violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Watch the raid for yourself if you've never seen it. The offensive language is not the offensive part.

But at least, says the Daily Tribune, the police were kind to the family after they murdered their pet:

Brittany Whitworth and her son were escorted outside the house after asking to be moved so they couldn’t see the dead dog, according to the order.

Officers complied with requests for blankets and shoes as they went out to wait in a patrol vehicle for the next two hours. That car was later moved upon the mother’s request so the boy would not see the dog’s remains taken out by animal control.

Police complied with an additional request to allow Brittany Whitworth to mop up the dog’s blood and for officers to tell her son that “Nala was alive and being taken to be a police dog.”

Past Reason reporting on the raid, which got an impressive amount of attention at the time. Reason on the militarization of police.

[ShaneEnochs]

BULLSHIT

[flightlesskiwi]

*speechless*

AF, i keep thinking about your 3 mile ship analogy. this country is headed in one destructive direction, and tptb have no intention of stopping. in fact, the speed keeps getting exponentially faster.

and the older i get, the more i know, the more i am without a doubt that this is deliberate. there are more and more willing useful idiots being used.

edit: another judicial precedent has been set.

[Kylie]

Recall the judge.

Or better, send the swat to kill his fucking dog and terrorize his family.

We are so screwed. :mad:

[Occam's Banana]

Not suprised by this in the least. "Checks & balances," my ass. The courts are nothing but the system's rubber-stamp.

[pcosmar]

Imagine that.
Same town I was sentenced to 25 years without a trial.

color me unsurprised.
:(

[Miss Annie]

Every day I am still shocked at the level of corruption that I see in this country. Every day I have to kick myself harder and harder not get a sad case of the "fuck it's - whats the use" attitude. From the bottom up,...... anyone that has any position of authority is bought and PAID for.

[phill4paul]

Not surprised. In the least.

There is no longer a checks and balance. Lawmakers, Law Enforcers and the Courts each support each other. The only part that is left out in the cold by this 'representative' government are those they are meant to represent.

[ShaneEnochs]

Imagine that.
Same town I was sentenced to 25 years without a trial.

color me unsurprised.
:(

What happened?

[pcosmar]

What happened?

I went to prison.

[aGameOfThrones]

Police complied with an additional request to allow Brittany Whitworth to mop up the dog’s blood and for officers to tell her son that “Nala was alive and being taken to be a police dog.”


Brittany, I'm disappointed in you.

[ShaneEnochs]

Brittany, I'm disappointed in you.

Kid looked awfully young. I probably would have said the same.

[Stevo_Chill]

I went to prison.

a very serious question. what made you not fight them. what kept you from taking at least one of these immoral fucks out with you?

[Pericles]

Do I remember? I have the memory of an elephant.

[pcosmar]

a very serious question. what made you not fight them. what kept you from taking at least one of these immoral fucks out with you?

It was a very long time ago. I did commit crimes.(armed stupidity) I do not deny that.

However,, I never had a trial, There were some hearings,, I had a real idiot PD (who has since skipped the country)
And I was sentenced without trial or opportunity to speak in my own defense.

I knew nothing of the Law at the time, and since I was guilty of the crime I accepted my sentence and did the time.
However, that does not change the fact that I had NO trial.

I would love for someone to prove me wrong.
All you have to do is get the Transcripts of my trial. (if I had one there should be some) I have had 2 lawyers make this attempt.
Good luck. I would love to see them. I know what was said,, I know what was done. Records are sealed.

[BUSHLIED]

Research is showing, as if we needed research to show this, that dogs and humans bond...it's almost like a relationship with a child...bullshit.

[Johnny Appleseed]

So how much longer are we supposed to let this go on?

[Rael]

It was a very long time ago. I did commit crimes.(armed stupidity) I do not deny that.

However,, I never had a trial, There were some hearings,, I had a real idiot PD (who has since skipped the country)
And I was sentenced without trial or opportunity to speak in my own defense.

I knew nothing of the Law at the time, and since I was guilty of the crime I accepted my sentence and did the time.
However, that does not change the fact that I had NO trial.

I would love for someone to prove me wrong.
All you have to do is get the Transcripts of my trial. (if I had one there should be some) I have had 2 lawyers make this attempt.
Good luck. I would love to see them. I know what was said,, I know what was done. Records are sealed.

So did the PD have u plead guilty?

[pcosmar]

So did the PD have u plead guilty?

No. But he was no help at all, never even spoke to me outside the courtroom and seemed more interested in antagonizing the judge that addressing my case. he never offered any defense at all.

Court transcripts would show that as well,,, if I could get them.
The Judge screwed up, and admitted that. That would also be recorded. Likely why it is sealed.

[Rael]

No. But he was no help at all, never even spoke to me outside the courtroom and seemed more interested in antagonizing the judge that addressing my case. he never offered any defense at all.

Court transcripts would show that as well,,, if I could get them.
The Judge screwed up, and admitted that. That would also be recorded. Likely why it is sealed.

So how were you convicted without pleading guilty? Did the PD waive your right to a jury trial?

[mrsat_98]

But as Radley Balko noted in May 2010, this raid wasn't unique, in fact it was far less of a disaster than it could have been: the police announced their presence, no humans were killed or injured, and it was even the correct house, in that it contained the person listed on the warrant.

human being See MONSTER.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

"Monstrous Rhetoric"
For example, children born of prostitutes are “monsters,” according to Roman law, since they have a human nature crossed with the “bestial characteristic of having been born of vagabond or uncertain unions.”

Midieval World
6. Christians, barbarians and monsters

To Be or Not To Be a Human Being?
From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'
This is an unusual definition, but like all Law Dictionaries on this subject, a non-definition. It only states that a 'human being' is a higher animal. It is not found anywhere in Scripture that a Christian Man or Woman is an animal or part of the animal kingdom. This being the case, then what exactly is a 'human being.'
From the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1901, 'human' is defined as, '3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)'
'Secular' being the important word here, we look to the multi-difinitions in the 1992 Random House Webster's College Dictionary: "Secular' adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred: temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred). 3. concerned with non-religious subjects. 4. not belonging to a religious order: not bound by monastic vows."

[DamianTV]

Imagine that.
Same town I was sentenced to 25 years without a trial.

color me unsurprised.
:(

Im afraid to ask what the hell you got sentenced for? I got a rap sheet too. Decided to leave when I was in the Military during Peace Time, and decided to go AWOL for a little business of my own, namely the death of my father, and they tried to tell me to go piss up a rope, the Military comes first, so I effectively quit. How about you, what are you in for?

[pcosmar]

So how were you convicted without pleading guilty? Did the PD waive your right to a jury trial?

No,, The PD was pushing a Plea Bargain. I refused the Plea Bargain. I also spoke to an assistant Prosecutor, (at least the prosecutor spoke with me), and explained that I refused the "Deal" and planned to beg the mercy of the court.

The judge assumed there was a Plea Bargain and sentenced me without ever giving me a chance to speak, (a mistake)
It was the only time my Lawyer correctly objected. The judges response,, "Oh Well, it's too late now anyway".

This was in that same Columbia Mo. courtroom.

[pcosmar]

Im afraid to ask what the hell you got sentenced for?

I robbed Banks. I never denied my guilt and have served my time. I have lived since then trying to get past that stupidity.

But I never had a trial or the chance to defend myself.
I just want my life/rights back. The court transcripts (if I could get them) might give me some leverage.

[Anti Federalist]

I robbed Banks.

Why is that even considered a crime?

;)

[ShaneEnochs]

I robbed Banks. I never denied my guilt and have served my time. I have lived since then trying to get past that stupidity.

But I never had a trial or the chance to defend myself.
I just want my life/rights back. The court transcripts (if I could get them) might give me some leverage.

Banks rob us, but somehow they don't go to jail.

[pcosmar]

Why is that even considered a crime?

;)

:D
Well inside a prison it is considered a "respectable" crime.

was still stupid though.
I never liked being a thief.

[CaptainAmerica]

Civil suit against the cops thrown out by judge, force used was "proper".




Subjects of Missouri Drug Raid That Went Viral Have Their Civil Suit Dismissed


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc&feature=player_embedded

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/22/subjects-of-missouri-drug-raid-turned-vi

Lucy Steigerwald | November 22, 2011

Jonathan and Brittany Whitworth became inadvertent youtube stars last year thanks to the Columbia, Missouri Police Department. The footage of the February 2010 narcotics raid on the Whitworth home — filmed by the SWAT team themselves —has now been watched more than 1.8 million times.

But as Radley Balko noted in May 2010, this raid wasn't unique, in fact it was far less of a disaster than it could have been: the police announced their presence, no humans were killed or injured, and it was even the correct house, in that it contained the person listed on the warrant. (And indeed, Jonathan plead guilty and paid a $300 fine for possession of drug paraphernalia, The parents were initially charged with child endangerment. Which is hilarious, considering who was firing weapons in a house which contained a child.)

Still, Jonathan Whitworth's baffled yells and the horrible whimpering of his injured dog made this raid go viral in a way that most of the 150 daily SWAT raids never will.

Now the Whitworths' civil suit has been dismissed by a federal judge. According to the Columbia Daily Tribune:

[The judge] found few, if any, facts to support many of the allegations in the complaint. She also found cause for tactics used by officers to conduct the raid, force used against Jonathan Whitworth during his arrest and the actions toward the wife and son to be proper....

The lawsuit was seeking restitution for damages to personal property and medical and veterinary expenses. It was filed in September 2010 against the 12 police officers who were at the raid for their contribution toward an alleged violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Watch the raid for yourself if you've never seen it. The offensive language is not the offensive part.

But at least, says the Daily Tribune, the police were kind to the family after they murdered their pet:

Brittany Whitworth and her son were escorted outside the house after asking to be moved so they couldn’t see the dead dog, according to the order.

Officers complied with requests for blankets and shoes as they went out to wait in a patrol vehicle for the next two hours. That car was later moved upon the mother’s request so the boy would not see the dog’s remains taken out by animal control.

Police complied with an additional request to allow Brittany Whitworth to mop up the dog’s blood and for officers to tell her son that “Nala was alive and being taken to be a police dog.”

Past Reason reporting on the raid, which got an impressive amount of attention at the time. Reason on the militarization of police. FUCK the police.and fuck these stupid judges.

[Scott.Alexander.Meiner]

Jonathan Whitworth’s Dismissed Civil Suit
BY SCOTT ALEXANDER MEINER, ON NOVEMBER 29TH, 2011
http://forfeiturereform.com/2011/11/29/jonathan-whitworths-dismissed-civil-suit/

Last week, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey granted summary judgement to dismiss the civil rights suit (raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) of Jonathan Whitworth, Brittany Whitworth, and their son. The civil rights claim stems from a February 2010 Columbia, Missouri SWAT raid that went viral when police footage was obtained by the Columbia Tribune.

At issue, in the petition for summary judgement, was whether the police officers’ discretionary behavior was reasonable, in the context of the situation, and whether it violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)).

Such cases, under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are to be looked at in the most favorable light to the non-movant (Whitworth).

In reality, law enforcement is afforded such favorable light, via judicial imaginings of what might have been reasonable, that “qualified immunity provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)

It is no surprise that Judge Laughrey was able to rationalize a context in which it might have been reasonable for an officer to kick Jonathan Whitworth in the head while he lay face down, unarmed, before a fully armed SWAT tactical unit.

“Thus, even if Hendrick indeed kicked Whitworth, a single kick to force swift compliance with an order, and to deter hesitation incompliance with future orders from a dangerous suspect, would be objectively reasonable in this context. It is also uncontested that Whitworth suffered no injury from this contact except pain.” Whitworth v. Bolinger

In the execution of the warrant, a paramilitary SWAT team entered the Whitworth’s family home. Police fired seven shots while in the Whitworth home. Both of the Whitworth family dogs were shot. One of the dogs was killed. The couple’s seven year old child was witness to the raid. Jonathan Whitworth was kicked in the head. Brittany Whitworth and her child were directed at gun point. As a result of the the raid, the police were able to find some drug paraphernalia and a small amount of cannabis. The police, initially, charged the Whitworths with child endangerment.

“The Court agrees that ideally officers would execute search warrants without pointing a gun at women and children not suspected of committing a crime. On the other hand, where officers are aware that a dangerous suspect and two large dogs are on the property, a reasonable officer could, in the heat of the moment, rely on such tactics to prod individuals to move swiftly through a potentially dangerous situation. This is especially true, where shouting and gun-pointing occurred as Mrs. Whitworth and P.M. stepped over Mr.Whitworth–who was lying on the floor–and the danger of resistance by any of the Whitworths was arguably at its highest. In this context, the behavior alleged by the Whitworths did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The SWAT officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.” Whitworth v. Bolinger

This is entirely consistent with scores of cases wherein citizens were plainly wronged and yet can find no corrective, civil recourse.

In 2010, Radley Balko described the false arrest and failed civil suit of Brian Kelly. The ordeal is as instructive as it is scary.

“When Rogers returned from writing a ticket, he noticed Kelly’s camera. Rogers demanded Kelly turn the camera off and hand it over to him. Kelly complied.

Rogers then returned to his car and called John Birbeck, an assistant district attorney in Cumberland County. Rogers asked Birbeck if Kelly’s recording violated Pennsylvania’s wiretapping law. Birbeck incorrectly told him it did. Rogers then called in back-up officers and placed Kelly under arrest. During the arrest, Rogers “bumped” (the term Kelly used in his lawsuit) Kelly, causing a staple from a rugby injury to rupture, causing Kelly’s leg to bleed. Kelly spent the night (27 hours) in jail. He was eventually charged with a felony punishable by up to seven years in prison. Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed would later tell the Patriot-News that while he sympathized with Kelly not being aware that what he did was illegal, and that he might (graciously!) allow Kelly to plead to a misdemeanor, “Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense.”

Here’s the problem: Freed was the one who was ignorant of the law. So was Birbeck. And so was Rogers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that recording on-duty public officials is not a violation of the state’s wiretapping law because public officials have no legitimate expectation of privacy while they’re on the job. The order for Kelly to stop videotaping was illegal. So was Kelly’s arrest and his incarceration. Freed eventually dropped all charges.

Kelly filed a civil rights lawsuit against Rogers and the town of Carlisle. In May of last year, Federal District Court Judge Yvette Kane dismissed Kelly’s suit. The reason? As a police officer, Rogers is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In order to even get his case in front of a jury, Kelly has to show that Rogers (a) violated Kelly’s civil rights, and (b) the rights Rogers violated have been clearly established. Even if Kelly can meet those two burdens, he must also show that Roger’s actions in violating Kelly’s rights were unreasonable.

So it isn’t enough that the police are wrong about the law. They have to be very obviously wrong for you to collect any damages from a wrongful arrest.”

Kelly’s civil suit (Kelly v. Borough Of Carlisle) claimed that the arrest had violated his rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments. Upon dismissal by summary judgement, Kelly appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Kelly’s First Amendment claim was rejected. All claims against the Borough of Carlisle were rejected. The summary judgement on Kelly’s Fourth Amendment claim was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Third Circuit’s analysis. The remand instructed,

“that police officer who relies in good faith on a prosecutor’s legal opinion that the arrest is warranted under the law is presumptively entitled to qualified immunity from Fourth Amendment claims premised on a lack of probable cause. That reliance must itself be objectively reasonable, however, because “a wave of the prosecutor’s wand cannot magically transform an unreasonable probable cause determination into a reasonable one.” Accordingly, a plaintiff may rebut this presumption by showing that, under all the factual and legal circumstances surrounding the arrest, a reasonable officer would not have relied on the prosecutor’s advice.”

In analyzing the holding, Harvard Law Review noted,

“The Third Circuit had previously allocated the burdens of production reasonably: once the plaintiff established a prima facie case of wrongful arrest, the court required the police officer defendant to show probable cause, and it required the defendant to prove his or her qualified immunity defense. This arrangement accommodated the plaintiff’s limited right to pretrial discovery and the officer’s information advantage regarding the plaintiff’s arrest. The court’s opinion in Kelly will upset this sensible allocation in cases in which the police officer has consulted with a prosecutor: the plaintiff will now have the burden of showing that the officer was objectively unreasonable in following the advice. Kelly is representative of the plaintiffs on whom this burden will fall. He was neither committing nor about to commit a crime. A police officer nonetheless arrested him, and he went to jail. Because the arrest was made without probable cause, it violated Kelly’s Fourth Amendment right. Moreover, the law was clearly established in the relevant jurisdiction that the officer’s basis for arresting Kelly did not constitute probable cause. Thus, a reasonable officer would have known that he was violating Kelly’s rights. Yet, solely because a prosecutor confirmed the police officer’s inaccurate interpretation of the law, Kelly (and similarly situated civil rights plaintiffs) will now be required to produce evidence to rebut the judicially mandated inference that the police officer’s violation of his clearly established constitutional right was objectively reasonable. This presumption is unlikely to increase legal consultation; instead, it will allow courts to relieve law enforcement officers of their responsibility to exercise independent professional judgment and will decrease the likelihood that constitutional violations will be redressed.”

Qualified immunity has become so expansive that it frequently fails to correct these constitutional violations.

Simultaneously, law enforcement is increasingly funded by separate revenue streams that are not directly answerable to local voter intent. Big money is coming in from asset forfeitures and federal law enforcement grants. Each dollar acquired outside of the legislative appropriation model is one less piece of control that the citizenry wield. The funds are not enough to ignore the citizenry, but we do see prioritization that is substantially at odds with voter intent.

The Whitworth warrant was predicated on unnamed sources that claimed Jonathan Whitworth was a major cannabis dealer. That was more than five years after Columbia, Missouri passed a proposition to make the enforcement of cannabis the lowest priority by law enforcement. The measure passed by a 61% to 39% vote.

An estimated 130-150 SWAT raids occur everyday in the United States. That is some 40,000-50,000 paramilitary operations every year.

We are simultaneously escalating domestic paramilitary activity, increasing immunity from prosecution, and ceding budgetary control.




Civil suit against the cops thrown out by judge, force used was "proper".




Subjects of Missouri Drug Raid That Went Viral Have Their Civil Suit Dismissed


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc&feature=player_embedded

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/22/subjects-of-missouri-drug-raid-turned-vi

Lucy Steigerwald | November 22, 2011

Jonathan and Brittany Whitworth became inadvertent youtube stars last year thanks to the Columbia, Missouri Police Department. The footage of the February 2010 narcotics raid on the Whitworth home — filmed by the SWAT team themselves —has now been watched more than 1.8 million times.

But as Radley Balko noted in May 2010, this raid wasn't unique, in fact it was far less of a disaster than it could have been: the police announced their presence, no humans were killed or injured, and it was even the correct house, in that it contained the person listed on the warrant. (And indeed, Jonathan plead guilty and paid a $300 fine for possession of drug paraphernalia, The parents were initially charged with child endangerment. Which is hilarious, considering who was firing weapons in a house which contained a child.)

Still, Jonathan Whitworth's baffled yells and the horrible whimpering of his injured dog made this raid go viral in a way that most of the 150 daily SWAT raids never will.

Now the Whitworths' civil suit has been dismissed by a federal judge. According to the Columbia Daily Tribune:

[The judge] found few, if any, facts to support many of the allegations in the complaint. She also found cause for tactics used by officers to conduct the raid, force used against Jonathan Whitworth during his arrest and the actions toward the wife and son to be proper....

The lawsuit was seeking restitution for damages to personal property and medical and veterinary expenses. It was filed in September 2010 against the 12 police officers who were at the raid for their contribution toward an alleged violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Watch the raid for yourself if you've never seen it. The offensive language is not the offensive part.

But at least, says the Daily Tribune, the police were kind to the family after they murdered their pet:

Brittany Whitworth and her son were escorted outside the house after asking to be moved so they couldn’t see the dead dog, according to the order.

Officers complied with requests for blankets and shoes as they went out to wait in a patrol vehicle for the next two hours. That car was later moved upon the mother’s request so the boy would not see the dog’s remains taken out by animal control.

Police complied with an additional request to allow Brittany Whitworth to mop up the dog’s blood and for officers to tell her son that “Nala was alive and being taken to be a police dog.”

Past Reason reporting on the raid, which got an impressive amount of attention at the time. Reason on the militarization of police.

[aGameOfThrones]

Jonathan Whitworth’s Dismissed Civil Suit
BY SCOTT ALEXANDER MEINER, ON NOVEMBER 29TH, 2011
http://forfeiturereform.com/2011/11/29/jonathan-whitworths-dismissed-civil-suit/

Last week, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey granted summary judgement to dismiss the civil rights suit (raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) of Jonathan Whitworth, Brittany Whitworth, and their son. The civil rights claim stems from a February 2010 Columbia, Missouri SWAT raid that went viral when police footage was obtained by the Columbia Tribune.

At issue, in the petition for summary judgement, was whether the police officers’ discretionary behavior was reasonable, in the context of the situation, and whether it violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)).

Such cases, under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are to be looked at in the most favorable light to the non-movant (Whitworth).

In reality, law enforcement is afforded such favorable light, via judicial imaginings of what might have been reasonable, that “qualified immunity provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)

It is no surprise that Judge Laughrey was able to rationalize a context in which it might have been reasonable for an officer to kick Jonathan Whitworth in the head while he lay face down, unarmed, before a fully armed SWAT tactical unit.

“Thus, even if Hendrick indeed kicked Whitworth, a single kick to force swift compliance with an order, and to deter hesitation incompliance with future orders from a dangerous suspect, would be objectively reasonable in this context. It is also uncontested that Whitworth suffered no injury from this contact except pain.” Whitworth v. Bolinger

In the execution of the warrant, a paramilitary SWAT team entered the Whitworth’s family home. Police fired seven shots while in the Whitworth home. Both of the Whitworth family dogs were shot. One of the dogs was killed. The couple’s seven year old child was witness to the raid. Jonathan Whitworth was kicked in the head. Brittany Whitworth and her child were directed at gun point. As a result of the the raid, the police were able to find some drug paraphernalia and a small amount of cannabis. The police, initially, charged the Whitworths with child endangerment.

“The Court agrees that ideally officers would execute search warrants without pointing a gun at women and children not suspected of committing a crime. On the other hand, where officers are aware that a dangerous suspect and two large dogs are on the property, a reasonable officer could, in the heat of the moment, rely on such tactics to prod individuals to move swiftly through a potentially dangerous situation. This is especially true, where shouting and gun-pointing occurred as Mrs. Whitworth and P.M. stepped over Mr.Whitworth–who was lying on the floor–and the danger of resistance by any of the Whitworths was arguably at its highest. In this context, the behavior alleged by the Whitworths did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The SWAT officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.” Whitworth v. Bolinger

This is entirely consistent with scores of cases wherein citizens were plainly wronged and yet can find no corrective, civil recourse.

In 2010, Radley Balko described the false arrest and failed civil suit of Brian Kelly. The ordeal is as instructive as it is scary.

“When Rogers returned from writing a ticket, he noticed Kelly’s camera. Rogers demanded Kelly turn the camera off and hand it over to him. Kelly complied.

Rogers then returned to his car and called John Birbeck, an assistant district attorney in Cumberland County. Rogers asked Birbeck if Kelly’s recording violated Pennsylvania’s wiretapping law. Birbeck incorrectly told him it did. Rogers then called in back-up officers and placed Kelly under arrest. During the arrest, Rogers “bumped” (the term Kelly used in his lawsuit) Kelly, causing a staple from a rugby injury to rupture, causing Kelly’s leg to bleed. Kelly spent the night (27 hours) in jail. He was eventually charged with a felony punishable by up to seven years in prison. Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed would later tell the Patriot-News that while he sympathized with Kelly not being aware that what he did was illegal, and that he might (graciously!) allow Kelly to plead to a misdemeanor, “Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense.”

Here’s the problem: Freed was the one who was ignorant of the law. So was Birbeck. And so was Rogers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that recording on-duty public officials is not a violation of the state’s wiretapping law because public officials have no legitimate expectation of privacy while they’re on the job. The order for Kelly to stop videotaping was illegal. So was Kelly’s arrest and his incarceration. Freed eventually dropped all charges.

Kelly filed a civil rights lawsuit against Rogers and the town of Carlisle. In May of last year, Federal District Court Judge Yvette Kane dismissed Kelly’s suit. The reason? As a police officer, Rogers is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In order to even get his case in front of a jury, Kelly has to show that Rogers (a) violated Kelly’s civil rights, and (b) the rights Rogers violated have been clearly established. Even if Kelly can meet those two burdens, he must also show that Roger’s actions in violating Kelly’s rights were unreasonable.

So it isn’t enough that the police are wrong about the law. They have to be very obviously wrong for you to collect any damages from a wrongful arrest.”

Kelly’s civil suit (Kelly v. Borough Of Carlisle) claimed that the arrest had violated his rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments. Upon dismissal by summary judgement, Kelly appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Kelly’s First Amendment claim was rejected. All claims against the Borough of Carlisle were rejected. The summary judgement on Kelly’s Fourth Amendment claim was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Third Circuit’s analysis. The remand instructed,

“that police officer who relies in good faith on a prosecutor’s legal opinion that the arrest is warranted under the law is presumptively entitled to qualified immunity from Fourth Amendment claims premised on a lack of probable cause. That reliance must itself be objectively reasonable, however, because “a wave of the prosecutor’s wand cannot magically transform an unreasonable probable cause determination into a reasonable one.” Accordingly, a plaintiff may rebut this presumption by showing that, under all the factual and legal circumstances surrounding the arrest, a reasonable officer would not have relied on the prosecutor’s advice.”

In analyzing the holding, Harvard Law Review noted,

“The Third Circuit had previously allocated the burdens of production reasonably: once the plaintiff established a prima facie case of wrongful arrest, the court required the police officer defendant to show probable cause, and it required the defendant to prove his or her qualified immunity defense. This arrangement accommodated the plaintiff’s limited right to pretrial discovery and the officer’s information advantage regarding the plaintiff’s arrest. The court’s opinion in Kelly will upset this sensible allocation in cases in which the police officer has consulted with a prosecutor: the plaintiff will now have the burden of showing that the officer was objectively unreasonable in following the advice. Kelly is representative of the plaintiffs on whom this burden will fall. He was neither committing nor about to commit a crime. A police officer nonetheless arrested him, and he went to jail. Because the arrest was made without probable cause, it violated Kelly’s Fourth Amendment right. Moreover, the law was clearly established in the relevant jurisdiction that the officer’s basis for arresting Kelly did not constitute probable cause. Thus, a reasonable officer would have known that he was violating Kelly’s rights. Yet, solely because a prosecutor confirmed the police officer’s inaccurate interpretation of the law, Kelly (and similarly situated civil rights plaintiffs) will now be required to produce evidence to rebut the judicially mandated inference that the police officer’s violation of his clearly established constitutional right was objectively reasonable. This presumption is unlikely to increase legal consultation; instead, it will allow courts to relieve law enforcement officers of their responsibility to exercise independent professional judgment and will decrease the likelihood that constitutional violations will be redressed.”

Qualified immunity has become so expansive that it frequently fails to correct these constitutional violations.

Simultaneously, law enforcement is increasingly funded by separate revenue streams that are not directly answerable to local voter intent. Big money is coming in from asset forfeitures and federal law enforcement grants. Each dollar acquired outside of the legislative appropriation model is one less piece of control that the citizenry wield. The funds are not enough to ignore the citizenry, but we do see prioritization that is substantially at odds with voter intent.

The Whitworth warrant was predicated on unnamed sources that claimed Jonathan Whitworth was a major cannabis dealer. That was more than five years after Columbia, Missouri passed a proposition to make the enforcement of cannabis the lowest priority by law enforcement. The measure passed by a 61% to 39% vote.

An estimated 130-150 SWAT raids occur everyday in the United States. That is some 40,000-50,000 paramilitary operations every year.

We are simultaneously escalating domestic paramilitary activity, increasing immunity from prosecution, and ceding budgetary control.

When you put it like that it sounds pretty bad. :cool: Everyone knows the cops were well intentioned :rolleyes:



Common as the event may be, it is a serious thing to arrest a citizen, and it is a more serious thing to search his person; and he who accomplishes it, must do so in conformity to the laws of the land. There are two reasons for this; one to avoid Bloodshed, and the other to preserve the liberty of the citizen. Obedience to law is the bond of society, and the Officer set to enforce the law are not exempt from its mandates. Town of Blacksburg v. beam, 104 S.C. 146, 88 S.E.441 (1916); Allen v state, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11(Wis. 1924)

[osan]

People need to start shooting back. Cops need to be leaving the scenes in body bags. By the thousands, if need be.

[Pericles]

Scott - welcome to RPF and have some +rep on me.

[Johnny Appleseed]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0a/Nanette_Laughrey_District_Judge.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanette_Kay_Laughrey
and to think she got her BA at ucla in 67...

once a judge always a judge...talk about job security (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_can_remove_a_federal_judge_from_office)

I know it gets the blood boiling, believe me I have been guilty but there needs to be a discipline in what we say here because it will be used against us...no need to WARRANT any undo suspicion...act like your in the funny farm where everything is beautiful all the time...the fence? oh its to keep all the bad animals out...

[Athan]

I robbed Banks. I never denied my guilt and have served my time.
In soviet America, banks rob you!

[Anti Federalist]

In soviet America, banks rob you!

Oh, holy shit...ROFLMFAO

[Wesker1982]

Not suprised by this in the least. "Checks & balances," my ass. The courts are nothing but the system's rubber-stamp.

‎Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts; and then someone proposes, as a solution to this eternal human problem, that he (someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable and yet this is precisely what all statists propose. - Hans-Hermann Hoppe