This exhibition demonstrates Sadie Barnette’s genuine belief in the possibility of taking one’s time to look through one’s past, diligently, to find a political orientation that does not resent this past, or skip over it, but goes through it.
by ABHIMANYU GHOSHAL — 18 hours ago in APPLE
By Tara O'Neill
After decades of problems, new allegations surface of a secret clique within L.A. County Sheriff’s Department
By MAYA LAU and JOEL RUBINJUL 10, 2018 | 5:00 AM
Rearview Mirror: Looking Back at the FBI, the CIA and Other Tails Hardcover – May 1, 2001by William W. Turner (Author)5.0 out of 5 stars 4 customer reviewsISBN-13: 978-1883955212 ISBN-10: 1883955211 Edition: First Edition, First Printing
Shaniz West sued Idaho police after they destroyed her home and belongings looking for a fugitive. He wasn’t even inside, but a court said the police did not have to pay her back for the tens of thousands of dollars in damages they caused.
Project on Immunity and Accountability
The Institute for Justice’s Project on Immunity and Accountability is devoted to the simple idea that government officials are not above the law; if citizens must follow the law, then government must follow the Constitution.
But a set of legal doctrines makes it nearly impossible for ordinary Americans to hold the government accountable in court when government officials violate our Constitutional rights. These doctrines give law enforcement officers and other government officials near complete immunity from being held accountable for their actions, no matter how egregious.
This is wrong. The Constitution is not an empty promise. It is a promise meant to be kept—and those who take an oath to uphold the Constitution should be required to keep it. And if they don’t, they should be held accountable for their actions.
To that end, IJ is dedicated to knocking down barriers to the enforcement of our nation’s most fundamental law. The Constitution’s protections for private property, free speech, economic liberty, and other rights are only meaningful if they are enforceable.
How Official Immunity Works (and How Government Officials Avoid Accountability)
Chief among these barriers to the enforcement of rights is the doctrine of so-called “qualified immunity,” which the Supreme Court created in 1982 as a practical barrier to enforcing whole swaths of the Constitution. Under qualified immunity, many lawsuits claiming that a government official violated someone’s constitutional rights—by, for instance, arresting them for expressing their political opinions or by revoking their firearms permit without cause—grind to a halt before they really begin because with qualified immunity the normal process of litigation is turned upside down.
In a normal court case, a defendant can be held liable if he did something that violated the law. The court’s job is to figure out what the defendant did, decide whether what he did was unlawful, and, finally, what the consequences should be. That’s how it would work if you sued your neighbor for stealing your stuff.
IJ is dedicated to knocking down barriers to the enforcement of our nation’s most fundamental law. The Constitution’s protections for private property, free speech, economic liberty, and other rights are only meaningful if they are enforceable.
Now imagine your neighbor is a police department and one day an agent intentionally steals your stuff while executing a search warrant. If you sue, you’re likely to lose.
Qualified immunity means the question for the court is different. It is not enough for a government official to have violated someone’s rights. Instead, officials can only be held liable if the constitutional rule was “clearly established.” If there was no previous case saying it was illegal for government agents to steal your stuff, you’d be out of luck.
Qualified immunity was originally pitched as a way to make sure government officials received fair warning of what they were not allowed to do. The notion of “clearly established” law has now turned into a kind of perverse game: Unless a plaintiff can point to a court decision saying that doing a specific thing in a specific way violates the law, courts generally apply qualified immunity and the official is immune from accountability. Even if every reasonable person would agree that what the official did was illegal, the official’s victims find themselves out of luck.
How One Case Illustrates the Problem of Government Immunity
A bag of broken glass is one of the few things remaining after police bombarded Shaniz West’s home with grenades.
A clear example of this is the case of Shaniz West, who gave police officers permission to go into her house to search for her ex-boyfriend (who Shaniz said was not there). Instead of going into the house (or using the key Shaniz gave them), the officers stood on the sidewalk and bombarded the house with shotgun-fired tear-gas grenades in the hopes of getting the boyfriend to come out. (He did not come out because, as Shaniz had said, he was not there. The police were instead bombarding a house that was empty but for Shaniz’s dog, Blue.)
No reasonable person would think that consent to go into a house is the same as consent to blow up the house from the outside, but when Shaniz sued, an appeals court ruled against her. Not because the officers did not exceed the scope of her consent when they bombed her house, but because no other court had previously held that government officials cannot blow up someone’s house simply because they have been given consent to go inside it.
The upshot of all this is a rule that says government officials can violate your rights with impunity—so long as they do so in a way no one has ever done before. And, perversely, that means that the most outrageous rights violations are the ones that are least likely to be punished: One court, for example, held that officers accused of stealing over $225,000 were entitled to “qualified immunity” and couldn’t be sued. According to the court, “there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant.” Therefore, immunity applies, because even though, as the court conceded, “virtually every human society teaches that theft generally is morally wrong,” it was not “obvious” the officers were in the wrong legally.
In another court, a panel of judges ruled that police officers who sicced a dog on a suspect who was sitting down with his hands up were entitled to qualified immunity because—while an earlier case had held that officers were not allowed to sic a dog on someone lying down—no case had ever discussed whether they could do so to a suspect who was sitting down with his hands up.
Judge-made Rules Erode Constitutional Rights
Qualified immunity is not the only doctrine that stands in between citizens’ rights and meaningful remedies. When it comes to federal officials who violate the Constitution, almost every right in the Bill of Rights has been rendered almost meaningless. Outside of a few specific contexts—unwarranted searches, certain kinds of employment discrimination, and cruel and unusual treatment of federal prisoners—courts have made it almost categorically impossible to sue a federal official for violating your rights.
Judge-made rules like these are inconsistent with the Constitution’s text and history, which show that the Constitution is meant to provide a government that is limited in fact, not just in theory. At the founding, it was uncontroversial that individuals could enforce their constitutional rights by suing government officials and recovering damages against them. The practice of dismissing constitutional claims on immunity grounds or because the claim lies against a federal official flies in the face of this history and is contrary to one of our most cherished legal principles that where there is a right, there must be a remedy.
When it comes to federal officials who violate the Constitution, almost every right in the Bill of Rights has been rendered almost meaningless.
Moreover, these judicial practices are antithetical to the idea of judicial engagement. They often prevent or restrict courts from examining the actual circumstances surrounding a government official’s actions. Judges often justify this judicial abdication by arguing that courtrooms will be clogged with a never-ending line of seemingly frivolous cases challenging arrests or claiming unfounded police brutality. But studies have shown that these judge-made rules do not even serve the policy goals articulated to justify their creation. So, they fail in both theory and practice.
Finally, rules like these hurt the most vulnerable among us: individuals who have already suffered harm and for whom damages are the only way to vindicate their constitutional rights. People who have the wherewithal to file a lawsuit before the government violates their rights can generally get a fair hearing in court. But people whose rights have been violated in the past all too often fall into one of the courts’ accountability-free zones, leaving them with their rights violated and with no remedy in sight. Allowing government officials to escape accountability for unconstitutional conduct simply because it occurred in the past is an attempt to renege on this nation’s fundamental promises in the Constitution.
How We’re Holding Government Accountable
The Lech family’s home was destroyed by police after a suspected shoplifter ran inside.
The Institute for Justice is dedicated to fighting judge-made rules that make it extremely difficult to hold government officials accountable for violations of constitutional rights. Our efforts include direct lawsuits against government officials, appellate friend-of-the-court briefs in support of individuals who suffered at the hands of government officials, and outreach to members of the public who want to know more about the difficulties of holding government officials accountable. We do all this because of our fundamental belief that following the Constitution means being held accountable for violating it. The judge-made rules that allow government officials to violate the Constitution without consequence have no place in our Constitutional republic.
Maine State police illegally collected data, trooper claims in whistleblower suit
May 14, 2020 9:35 am
A division of the Maine State Police illegally gathered and handled personal data about Mainers, according to an employment discrimination lawsuit filed in federal court by a state trooper.
George Loder, 50, of Scarborough is suing the Maine Intelligence Analysis Center, and its supervisors, claiming he was demoted after he told his bosses that the center was collecting and maintaining data illegally, including information about people who had applied to buy guns from firearms dealers, those who legally protested and those who worked at a Maine international camp for Israeli and Arab teens. The center is responsible for
Cop fired over Parkland shooting to be reinstated
By JOSEPH WILKINSON
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
MAY 13, 2020 | 9:54 PM
Kentucky police shooting of EMT Breonna Taylor should get special prosecutor, commonwealth Attorney says
By NANCY DILLON
MAY 13, 2020 | 8:12 PM
Senate votes down anti-surveillance amendment, as both parties back warrantless spying on Americans' browser history
13 May, 2020 21:15 / Updated 6 hours ago
Thursday, May 14, 2020
'Monstrous Cruelty: As Hunger Soars, Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Take Nutrition Benefits From More Than a Million People
"The administration has decided that now—amid the most pervasive need in a century—is a great time to crack down on Americans who rely on food stamps."
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
If This 'Doesn't Give You Chills I Don't Know What Will': McConnell Patriot Act Expansion Would Hand AG Barr Unprecedented Spy Powers
"These amendments would pretty much guarantee the ability of an incumbent administration to spy on its political opponents without consequence."
AS CORONAVIRUS SPREADS BEHIND BARS, PRISONS RELEASE VERY FEW PEOPLE
May 14 2020, 10:02 a.m.
Don’t Expect to See Trump’s Tax Returns Before the Election
Trump Administration Won’t Guarantee Universal Access to COVID-19 Vaccine
17.34% of people in Montana prisons are over 55
See data for your state
PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE UPDATES
for May 12, 2020
Showing how mass incarceration harms communities and our national welfare
New state-by-state table: how many people in prison are 55 or older
Our table shows that more than 10% of people incarcerated in state prisons are 55 or older - and in some states, like Montana, the percentage is much higher.
by Emily Widra
With the CDC having warned that older adults are at heightened risk for severe complications and death from COVID-19, readers have asked us: Just how many people in state prisons are older adults? We've answered this question — state by state — in a handy table below.
To prepare our table, we drew on the most recent age data from the National Corrections Reporting Program, 1991-2015. Age data for state prisons is broken down into categories, and older adults fall into the category of "55 and older." Although outside of correctional facilities, the term "older adults" often refers to people 65 and older, incarceration itself shortens life expectancy and hastens physiological aging. So for the purposes of addressing how vulnerable different groups are to the coronavirus, it makes sense to consider adults 55 and older behind bars as "older adults."
We found that, on average, more than 10% of people in state prisons are over the age of 55. Some state prison systems have much higher percentages of older adults, like in Montana, where over 17% of the state prison population is 55 years or older.
Regardless of their preexisting health conditions, all older adults are at greater risk for complications from COVID-19. As this virus threatens to turn their prison sentences into death sentences, states should use all possible strategies to release them to the care of thei
Ex-cop charged in Ahmaud Arbery killing was banned from making arrests after skipping use-of-force training: report
By NELSON OLIVEIRA
MAY 14, 2020 | 12:42 PM
Thursday, May 14
FROM THE VAULT
May 13, 1985: The Day a City Bombed Its Own People - Defending Rights & Dissent
Defending Rights & Dissent
11 Philadelphia City Council members issue apology on 35th anniversary of MOVE bombing
Gray Hall, 6abc/WPVI-TV
Under Cover of Mass Death, Andrew Cuomo Calls in the Billionaires to Build a High-Tech Dystopia
Naomi Klein, The Intercept
Senate defeats amendment to shield browsing histories in FISA searches
Martin Matishak, Politico
In win for privacy hawks, Senate adds more legal protections to FISA bill
Jordain Carney, The Hill
Wednesday, May 13
It’s Time to Rein in NYPD’s Vast Surveillance Regime
They’re Not Sending Their Best People to Stage a Coup in Venezuela
Chip Gibbons, Jacobin
Mitch McConnell Wants to Crank Up Bill Barr's Surveillance Powers. What Could Go Wrong?
Charles P. Pierce, Esquire
Obama's 'rule of law' hypocrisy
Patrick G. Eddington, The Hill
Congress May Hand Bill Barr the Keys to Your Online Life
Melissa Gira Grant, The New Republic
Tuesday, May 12
Showdown Between Privacy and Surveillance Set for Tomorrow - Defending Rights & Dissent
Sue Udry, Defending Rights & Dissent
‘Graffiti Grandma’ Says She Was Arrested For Writing Message in Chalk on NYC Building
Adam Harding, NBC New York
Why Did It Take the Feds Weeks to Report COVID-19 Cases In Privately Run Prisons?
Joseph Neff, The Marshall Project
A Woman Died Of Covid-19 In A New Jersey Prison After Begging To Be Let Out Of A Locked Shower
Alice Speri, The Intercept
Clearview AI to stop selling controversial facial recognition app to private companies
Nick Statt, The Verge
Monday, May 11
The “Coup” Attempt in Venezuela Seems Ridiculous. But Don’t Forget — Regime Change Is the U.S. Goal.
Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept
Georgia Attorney General Asks For DOJ Probe Into Handling Of Ahmaud Arbery Case
Marie Andrusewicz, NPR
▷ Has surveillance during the pandemic gone too far?
Pandemic & Protest: Former NYCLU Head Calls On De Blasio To End Free Speech Crackdown
John Tarleton, The Indypendent
FISA Surveillance and Possible Reforms Are Back on the Senate's Agenda
Scott Shackford, Reason
3 North Carolina sheriffs won’t enforce social distancing at churches: ‘NOW LET’S HAVE CHURCH’
MAY 14, 2020 | 6:35 PM
Supported videos include:
Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.