SCOTUSblog by Andrew Hamm 2/6/2020
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude†is void for vagueness, whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is entitled, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, and whether the Supreme Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.
The petitions of the week are below the jump:
-----
Hunter v. Cole
19-753
Issues: Whether, if the barrel of a gun is not yet pointed directly at an officer, clearly established federal law prohibits police officers from firing to stop a person armed with a firearm from moving a deadly weapon toward an officer if the officer has not both shouted a warning and also waited to determine whether the imminent threat to life has subsided after the warning; and (2) whether a police officer who inaccurately reports his perceptions of events during a dynamic shooting encounter violates clearly established rights under the 14th Amendment.
More:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/02/petitions-of-the-week-80/#more-291676Two Recent en banc Decisions Exemplify the Injustice, Impracticality, and Persistent Confusion Inherent to Qualified Immunity
By Jay Schweikert
Cato.org By Jay Schweikert 8/22/2019
https://www.cato.org/blog/two-recent-en-banc-decisions-exemplify-injustice-impracticality-persistent-confusion-inherentCole v. Hunter: A rare but narrow victory for a victim of egregious police misconduct
This Fifth Circuit case arose out of an incident in Garland, Texas in October 2010, when police were looking for Ryan Cole, then a 17â€â€‹yearâ€â€‹old boy, who had reportedly been walking around the neighborhood with a handgun. Ryan was seen by some officers and ordered to stop, but Ryan pointed the gun at his own head and walked away toward a wooded area. When Ryan reemerged, a group of officers observed him for about five seconds and did not announce themselves or give any warning. Then, while Ryan was facing away from them with the gun still pointed at his head, one or more of the officers fired at him, striking him several times and causing him to involuntary discharge his own gun into his skull and brain. When two of the officers were questioned after the shooting, they falsely claimed that Ryan had turned to face them and pointed his gun at them before they fired — an assertion belied by ample forensic and physical evidence (specifically, the location of Ryan’s bullet wounds, and the location of shell casings and Ryan’s blood).
Ryan and his family brought a civil rights suit against these officers, claiming that they used excessive force and fabricated evidence in violation of Ryan’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court denied qualified immunity to the defendants at summary judgment, a panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Fifth Circuit then agreed to rehear the case en banc. The court then held, 11–7, that a reasonable jury could have found that Ryan posed no threat to the officers, and that it was clearly established that “shooting a mentally disturbed teenager, who was pointing a gun the entire time at his own head and facing away from the officer, in an open outdoor area, and who was unaware of the officer’s presence because no warning was given prior to the officer opening fire, was unlawful.†Although the defendants presented a starkly different view of the facts, the majority correctly recognized — as courts often fail to do in qualified immunity cases! — that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the officers’ competing factual narrative in this appeal. Rather, the disputed facts would have to be resolved by a jury.
More at link.
