11th Circuit Court ruling slam SWAT raid of barbershop over licenses

[XNavyNuke]

PDF of Ruling No. 13-14092 (http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/18/barbershop.pdf)


We first held nineteen years ago that conducting a run-of-the-mill administrative inspection as though it is a criminal raid, when no indication exists that safety will be threatened by the inspection, violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. See Swint v. City of Wadley , 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995). We reaffirmed that principle in 2007 when we held that other deputies of the very same Orange County Sheriff’s Office who participated in a similar warrantless criminal raid under the guise of executing an administrative inspection were not entitled to qualified immunity. See Bruce v. Beary
, 498 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2007). Today, we repeat that same message once again. We hope that the third time will be the charm.

Right! Sheepdogs will always follow their stomachs (money) no matter how many times you pop them over the nose with a newspaper.

XNN

[PaulConventionWV]

PDF of Ruling No. 13-14092 (http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/18/barbershop.pdf)



Right! Sheepdogs will always follow their stomachs (money) no matter how many times you pop them over the nose with a newspaper.

XNN

Thank God they're speaking out against this. Ah, but alas, the best they can do is "hope" that the third time will be a charm.

Here's a hint: If there were no real consequences the first three times, what makes you think they're going to learn their lesson in the future? This will not stop until there are consequences. It's bad enough that law enforcement is able to defy the law knowingly and blatantly, and yet we don't do anything about it. Now they do it again and all they get is a passive, "We wish you wouldn't do that."

[presence]

It is not adequate to simply remind them that this is unlawful behavior. They should be held ACCOUNTABLE for their dangerous lawless actions: The officers involved and their leadership should all be held PERSONALLY accountable for endangering the public under the color of law. All costs related to the raid and all costs associated with litigating should be odious debts; accountablity for their repayment should fall PERSONALLY on those involved.

[tod evans]

It is not adequate to simply remind them that this is unlawful behavior. They should be held ACCOUNTABLE for their dangerous lawless actions: The officers involved and their leadership should all be held PERSONALLY accountable for endangering the public under the color of law. All costs related to the raid and all costs associated with litigating should be odious debts; accountablity for their repayment should fall PERSONALLY on those involved.

This is the only way this type of behavior is going to end.



There's a fellow out in Pa. in "The Newz" who's holding the state kops personally accountable...:cool:

[presence]

There's a fellow out in Pa. in "The Newz" who's holding the state kops personally accountable...:cool:

Which is unfortunate, yet entirely overdue, predictable, consilient, and forwarned dissonant justice.

[jllundqu]

This looks like it was just a ruling on whether the officers involved, and the department, are entitled to qualified immunity (protection from being sued personally). Now that they have ruled the cops are NOT entitled to that protection, I would assume they are all being sued into oblivion right about now....

This was just low:


Vidler, who was the supervisor on the scene, admits that he ordered deputies to detain Trammon. When Trammon argued to one of the officers that he had done nothing wrong, the officer responded, “It’s a pretty big book, I’m pretty sure I can find something in here to take you to jail for.”

[jllundqu]

More from the brief on Qualified Immunity:


Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). This doctrine protects “all but the plainly incompetent or one who is knowingly violating the federal law.”

[presence]

When Trammon argued to one of the officers that he had done nothing wrong, the officer responded,
“It’s a pretty big book,
I’m pretty sure I can find something in here to take you to jail for.”


THIS is the problem. Not "militarization". Its not the toys they have, its the rule book they play by.

[tod evans]

THIS is the problem. Not "militarization". Its not the toys they have, its the rule book they play by.

Don't forget the fine folks who apply and interpret this "book"...

DA's and judges are who I hold accountable.

[PaulConventionWV]

More from the brief on Qualified Immunity:

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). This doctrine protects “all but the plainly incompetent or one who is knowingly violating the federal law.”

That describes all police to a T.