Remember Policy, Procedure, Process, Protocol and Practice are more important than what the Law says or Constitutional Rights to the Law Enforcement Caste.
Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Tuesday, January 16, 2024
Support the blue line by defending the following hero cops deaths of BIPOC people.
Tamir Rice, Tyre Nichols, Antwon Rose Jr, Botham Jean, Walter Scott, Jordan Edwards, Rekia Boyd and Laquan McDonald.
Saturday, August 19, 2023
Qualified Immunity
https://www.publicsafetycolorado.com/qualified-immunity
Every day, law enforcement officers work to keep Colorado communities safe. Unfortunately, officers are often faced with dangerous, rapidly evolving situations where they are forced to make split-second decisions to save lives.
Recognizing the perilous and extraordinarily unique circumstances that officers face, the Courts provided them with a limited type of immunity commonly referred to as “qualified immunity.” For qualified immunity to apply, the officer must act in good faith and meet other requirements. As a result, this immunity only applies in very limited circumstances, and it is by no means absolute. Officers who violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights can still be held accountable for their actions.
+ What is qualified immunity?
Qualified immunity is a legal principle that applies only in civil cases. It protects government officials, including law enforcement officers, from civil liability for reasonable actions they take while performing their official duties. It protects those who are acting in good faith to perform their duties within the law, particularly in difficult or uncertain situations where the Courts have not established in case law that such actions are unconstitutional. It provides no protection for those who knowingly and willfully violate the law.
+ What does qualified immunity NOT protect?
Qualified immunity does not protect those who are incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.
Qualified immunity does not apply when state or federal criminal charges are brought against an officer.
Qualified immunity does not protect law enforcement officers or agencies from clearly established unconstitutional practices or from violating clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
+ Qualified immunity vs. other legal immunities
Qualified immunity has more limitations than immunities provided to federal and state governments, to state legislators and state and federal prosecutors, all of whom enjoy almost absolute immunity. This is despite the fact these individuals generally have ample time to consider their decisions before making them, unlike law enforcement officers, who are provided no such luxury and must make decisions on-the-spot.
+ Qualified immunity in the courts
The courts have found that:
Qualified immunity is necessary to protect government actors, including police officers, from liability to allow them to function in uncertain situations where immediate action is needed for the public good. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009).
The qualified immunity rule seeks a proper balance between two competing interests by allowing damages suits for vindication of constitutional guarantees while allowing officers to perform their duties in good faith with breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017).
The courts have held that eliminating qualified immunity would keep officers from making crucial, split-second, life or death decisions to stop a lethal threat and that innocent victims and officers would be hurt or killed as a result. Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015).
+ Practical effects of qualified immunity
● The ability to carry out public safety functions. Public officials, including police officers, perform important tasks in a high-stress environment that often requires split-second decisions. Without qualified immunity, officers may hesitate to take necessary action, fearing that they could lose their home and their ability to support their families due to the potential financial consequences.
● Recruitment and retention. Applications for law enforcement positions are at an all- time low. Qualified applicants are looking for jobs in other career paths, and great officers are leaving the profession for other careers. Increased personal liability in any area of work reduces the talent pool for filling positions in that line of work. And there is concern the number of qualified people interested in becoming a peace officer will decrease.
● Litigation. Qualified immunity protects officers and local governments from frivolous or baseless litigation that is costly to taxpayers and would divert public safety resources away from communities. Qualified immunity seeks to strike a balance between addressing unacceptable conduct by not protecting incompetent officers who violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights while also protecting government funds from costly litigation.
+ How can we ensure qualified immunity does not protect bad officers?
● Qualified immunity is NOT absolute immunity. Officers can still be held accountable for their actions if they act in bad faith or violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.
● Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. To determine whether a given officer falls into either of those two categories, a court must ask whether it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that the alleged conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. If so, then the defendant officer must have been either incompetent or else a knowing violator of the law, and thus not entitled to qualified immunity. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017)
Tuesday, January 24, 2023
Jason Harley Kloepfer guilt of Communicating Threats and Resist, Obstruct, and Delay.
December 13 2022
**For Immediate Release**
On Monday December 12th, 2022 at approximately 11pm Cherokee County E911 Communications received a 911 call indicating a disturbance with several gun shots fired at 1790 Upper Bear Paw Road. Cherokee County Deputies were immediately dispatched and arrived on the scene at approximately 11:17pm. Deputies attempted to make contact with the alleged shooter but was unsuccessful. Recognizing there was an armed suspect present and the potential for a hostage situation, Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office obtained a search warrant and requested assistance from the Cherokee Indian Police Department SWAT Team. The suspected shooter engaged in a verbal altercation with officers and emerged from a camper trailer and confronted officers. Members of the Cherokee Indian Police SWAT Team fired upon the suspect and wounded him. The suspect was transported to Erlanger in Chattanooga Tennessee where he was last reported in stable condition.
North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations was called to investigate the matter. After consultation with the District Attorney’s Office, Jason Harley Kloepfer, age 41, of 1790 Upper Bear Paw Road, Murphy, NC has been charged with Communicating Threats and Resist, Obstruct, and Delay. The matter remains under investigation and more charges may follow. Cherokee County Sheriff Dustin Smith wishes to thank the Cherokee Indian Police Department, Cherokee County EMS, and Cherokee County E911 Communications for their assistance with this incident. If anyone has any information about this incident please contact the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office Investigation’ s Division at 828 837-2589.
January 20, 2023
***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
On the evening of December 12, 2022, Emergency 911 dispatch received a report about a possible shooting and hostage situation on Upper Bear Paw Road in Murphy.
Since the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office does not have a tactical team to handle a hostage event, I requested assistance from the Cherokee Indian Police Department SWAT Team. Subsequently, members of CIPD SWAT fired shots at an individual who emerged from the home, injuring him.
Neither myself nor Chief Deputy Justin Jacobs were on the scene at the time of the shooting, so we relied on information provided to us from the Cherokee Indian Police Department. My goal with issuing that press release was not to comment on the subsequent criminal investigation, which remains ongoing, but rather to update the public on a dangerous situation.
The first time I ever saw video footage from the shooting was on January 18, 2023. It’s my understanding that the state and district attorney’s office has been notified of the video as well.
When I campaigned for the office of Sheriff, I had several conversations with fellow law enforcement officials and the public about the need for Cherokee County to have its own tactical team. It is imperative for us to be self-reliant when it comes to fighting crime, especially during a situation in which time is of the essence, such as a hostage or active shooter event.
I will be asking county commissioners for the funds to create such a unit when budget negotiations for the next fiscal year begin.
Thank you for your understanding and continued support.
Sincerely,
Dustin Smith
Cherokee County Sheriff
Wednesday, June 22, 2022
Hero Harnett County Deputy Nicholas Kehagias
The Harnett County sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed a man on the front porch of his home last year has announced his resignation.
Multiple media outlets report Deputy Nicholas Kehagias sent a letter to Sheriff Wayne Coats saying his resignation is effective June 30. In the letter, Kehagias said while offering his resignation was difficult, “I cannot risk putting my fellow law enforcement officers in increased danger due to the environment created by a dishonest media and a baseless lawsuit.”
Thursday, December 23, 2021
Railroaded Hero Cops.
Utah Police Det. Jeff Payne
Sgt. Ray Corll
Sgt William Dukes, Jr.
Deputy Zach Wester
NYPD det. Michael Bergmann and Kevin Desormeau
NYPD Off. Jonathan Munoz
Off. Nouman Raja
Off. Jason Van Dyke
Off. Roy Oliver
Off. Mohammed Noor
Off. Anthony Abbate
Det. Dante Servin
Off. Michael Slager
NYPD Off. James Frascatore
Off. Gregg Junnier
Off. Jason Smith
Off. Arthur Tesler
Baltimore PD Gun Trace Task Force
Off. Daniel Hersl
Off. Evodio Hendrix
Off. Jemell Rayam
Off. Marcus Taylor
Off. Maurice Ward
Off. Momodu Gando
Off Thomas Allers
Off. Wayne Jenkins
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Letter to Conor Lamb
I am writing to you as one of your constituents on a matter of the greatest importance in this Day and Age. It is a difficult and demoralizing time for Law Enforcement because of the so-called Criminal Justice reform movement. Increased surveillance resulting from advances in technology like digital recording and wireless broadband has come to mean that Law enforcement mistakes are wrongly widely broadcast — typically without context or rights of rebuttal — exposing them to unprecedented, unfounded public scrutiny This allows the public who have not trained as police officers to make what often amounts to biased and ill-informed judgments of the police.
The following raft of anti-police bills have been proposed.
H.R.7120 - Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
H.R.7144 - To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the reckless use of excessive force under the color of law, and for other purposes.
H.R.7085 - To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes.
In the wake of nationwide protests and the steady stream of hatred directed at police by politicians, celebrities and the media that are destroying the morale of law enforcement, diminish their rights, safety and standing in the community and expose them to increased risk, both on and off the job.
I ask you: when the 1+ million brave men and women of law enforcement are an object of universal hatred, when their rights are stripped away and their safety and their families’ safety are unnecessarily put at risk, who will continue to enforcing our laws – the laws that you, the Legislature, pass – and selflessly putting themselves in harms’ way to keep us safe and protect our rights and freedoms with pride?
People who have little or no Law Enforcement or Legal experience have weaponized the First Amendment to verbal assault and taunt Law Enforcement. They try to unfairly bait and entrap Law Enforcement into mistakenly committing misconduct. These agitators have gotten a number of public officials unfairly and unjustly punished, fired and/or imprisoned due to witch hunts and scapegoating caused when legal reasonable actions by Law Enforcement were illegally exposed to the public and the situation becomes political.
Your support of the following bills show that you believe that no Constitutional Amendment is absolute and are willing to put limits on Constitutional Rights for the greater good.
H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019,
H.R .112 Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019
H.R. 1296 Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
H.R. 1236 Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019
H.R. 1186 Keep Americans Safe Act
H.R. 2708 Disarm Hate Act
Given your past as a Federal Prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office in Pittsburgh, your unwavering commitment to and advocacy for the Rule of Law and with your full support of Law Enforcement that place their lives at risk to protect our neighborhoods and deserve our respect, admiration, and support, I am writing to inquire if you would be interested in sponsoring the Federal Law Enforcement Bill of Rights that includes the following:
1st Rule of Policing: Police have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch. It does not matter how many non-law enforcement personnel are injured or killed or have their “rights” violated to achieve this goal as Police are entitled to impunity for their violence and protection from harm above all others.
Sealing of all law enforcement records from the public unless the release has the approval of all police officers involved. Unauthorized release of law enforcement records would impact the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Police are entitled to absolute privacy when performing their duties. Police should only be required to identify themselves only in the arrest warrant or report if used in court.
Police officers can seize and delete any video and/or audio of wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public as it violates their privacy, distracts from their duties and jeopardizes Officer safety. This right to privacy is absolute when Police are engaged in Routine Non-Enforcement Activity. The act of recording police starts from the belief that every officer is doing something wrong and that's insulting to all police officers. An Automatic search warrant and SWAT raid is authorized for anyone in possession of video and/or audio of wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public. The Anti-Police court decisions of Glik v. Cunniffe, Smith v. City of Cumming, Fordyce v. City of Seattle, Szymecki v. Houck, Turner v. Driver and Fields v. City of Philadelphia need to be reversed by this new law.
Police officer statements override any video or audio evidence as the officers' reasonable perceptions are more accurate. Video or audio footage does not capture the physical struggle from the officers' perspective, nor does it capture the officers' reasonable, split-second decision-making and thought processes in tense circumstances. This is the case especially when the video or audio is gathered by illegally wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public.
Citizens must provide ID and must allow themselves to be searched by Law Enforcement when so ordered by Police.
Repeal Anti Police excessive force, false arrest and civil rights violations laws such as 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights that jeopardize Officer safety. Laws affirming Qualified immunity should be passed.
Reporting and Statistics about Police misconduct, shootings, and use of SWAT should be illegal to be collected or published as they may inflame anti police sentiment jeopardizing Officer safety. violating the Officers’ privacy, renders police vulnerable to unfounded scrutiny and impacts the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Any videos from Police equipment should only be used in court and/or be released to the public with the approval of all police officers being filmed to protect their privacy. Police Dash Cam, Police and Jail surveillance video videos should only be used to protect Police, not as an internal affairs “gotcha-headhunter” tool. Unauthorized release of the video and audio would impact the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Police officers should be exempt from all making false statements laws
People who have no idea about the job of Law Enforcement should not be deciding the outcome in civil and criminal cases which involve the reasonable officer standard. Police officers should only be tried by a special court composed only of Law Enforcement officers.
“Brady cops” do not exist. Perjury in previous cases should not be a factor in judging a officer’s truthfulness and violates their privacy
It is illegal to make a false accusation against a Police officer.
Police officers accused of misconduct should be notified of all incriminating evidence or witness statements, be able to review it without an investigator looking into their actions during that process and remain silent for a 72 hours cooling off period afterwards. Additionally the officer has 30 days to get an attorney before they can be questioned by superiors, An officer may not be investigated on a misconduct accusation unless it was made within 90 days of the incident.
A complaint against a law enforcement officer that alleges brutality in the execution of the law enforcement officer's duties may not be investigated unless the complaint is sworn to, before an official authorized to administer oaths, by the aggrieved individual, a member of the aggrieved individual's immediate family. an individual with firsthand knowledge obtained because the individual was present at and observed the alleged incident or the parent or guardian of the minor child, if the alleged incident involves a minor child.
Unless a complaint is filed within 90 days after the alleged brutality, an investigation that may lead to disciplinary action under this subtitle for brutality may not be initiated and an action may not be taken.
Before an interrogation, the law enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed in writing of the nature of the investigation.
The interrogation shall take place at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct or police unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer or at another reasonable and appropriate place. The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably when the law enforcement officer is on duty and h) Conduct of interrogation.-
All questions directed to the law enforcement officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through one interrogating officer during any one session of interrogation. (23) Each session of interrogation shall be for a reasonable period; and allow for personal necessities and rest periods as reasonably necessary. Threat of transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action prohibited.- The law enforcement officer under interrogation may not be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action.
A complete record shall be kept of the entire interrogation, including all recess periods, of the law enforcement officer. The record may be written, taped, or transcribed. On completion of the investigation, and on request of the law enforcement officer under investigation or the law enforcement officer's counsel or representative, a copy of the record of the interrogation shall be made available at least 10 days before a hearing.
It is illegal to engage in Contempt of Cop behavior, taunting, provoking, disrespecting the law enforcement officer or questioning their knowledge of the Law.
Amendment to the US Constitution that the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights. takes precedent over other "Civil Rights" in the Bill of Rights.
I am sure that the Federal Law Enforcement Bill of Rights, that will grant and protect the special rights that Law Enforcement needs and deserves, would have the full support and backing of all Law Enforcement and Police groups and unions. 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was one of the chief proponents of a Police Officer's Bill of Rights.
I await your response.
The following raft of anti-police bills have been proposed.
H.R.7120 - Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
H.R.7144 - To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the reckless use of excessive force under the color of law, and for other purposes.
H.R.7085 - To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes.
In the wake of nationwide protests and the steady stream of hatred directed at police by politicians, celebrities and the media that are destroying the morale of law enforcement, diminish their rights, safety and standing in the community and expose them to increased risk, both on and off the job.
I ask you: when the 1+ million brave men and women of law enforcement are an object of universal hatred, when their rights are stripped away and their safety and their families’ safety are unnecessarily put at risk, who will continue to enforcing our laws – the laws that you, the Legislature, pass – and selflessly putting themselves in harms’ way to keep us safe and protect our rights and freedoms with pride?
People who have little or no Law Enforcement or Legal experience have weaponized the First Amendment to verbal assault and taunt Law Enforcement. They try to unfairly bait and entrap Law Enforcement into mistakenly committing misconduct. These agitators have gotten a number of public officials unfairly and unjustly punished, fired and/or imprisoned due to witch hunts and scapegoating caused when legal reasonable actions by Law Enforcement were illegally exposed to the public and the situation becomes political.
Your support of the following bills show that you believe that no Constitutional Amendment is absolute and are willing to put limits on Constitutional Rights for the greater good.
H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019,
H.R .112 Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019
H.R. 1296 Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
H.R. 1236 Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019
H.R. 1186 Keep Americans Safe Act
H.R. 2708 Disarm Hate Act
Given your past as a Federal Prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office in Pittsburgh, your unwavering commitment to and advocacy for the Rule of Law and with your full support of Law Enforcement that place their lives at risk to protect our neighborhoods and deserve our respect, admiration, and support, I am writing to inquire if you would be interested in sponsoring the Federal Law Enforcement Bill of Rights that includes the following:
1st Rule of Policing: Police have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch. It does not matter how many non-law enforcement personnel are injured or killed or have their “rights” violated to achieve this goal as Police are entitled to impunity for their violence and protection from harm above all others.
Sealing of all law enforcement records from the public unless the release has the approval of all police officers involved. Unauthorized release of law enforcement records would impact the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Police are entitled to absolute privacy when performing their duties. Police should only be required to identify themselves only in the arrest warrant or report if used in court.
Police officers can seize and delete any video and/or audio of wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public as it violates their privacy, distracts from their duties and jeopardizes Officer safety. This right to privacy is absolute when Police are engaged in Routine Non-Enforcement Activity. The act of recording police starts from the belief that every officer is doing something wrong and that's insulting to all police officers. An Automatic search warrant and SWAT raid is authorized for anyone in possession of video and/or audio of wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public. The Anti-Police court decisions of Glik v. Cunniffe, Smith v. City of Cumming, Fordyce v. City of Seattle, Szymecki v. Houck, Turner v. Driver and Fields v. City of Philadelphia need to be reversed by this new law.
Police officer statements override any video or audio evidence as the officers' reasonable perceptions are more accurate. Video or audio footage does not capture the physical struggle from the officers' perspective, nor does it capture the officers' reasonable, split-second decision-making and thought processes in tense circumstances. This is the case especially when the video or audio is gathered by illegally wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public.
Citizens must provide ID and must allow themselves to be searched by Law Enforcement when so ordered by Police.
Repeal Anti Police excessive force, false arrest and civil rights violations laws such as 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights that jeopardize Officer safety. Laws affirming Qualified immunity should be passed.
Reporting and Statistics about Police misconduct, shootings, and use of SWAT should be illegal to be collected or published as they may inflame anti police sentiment jeopardizing Officer safety. violating the Officers’ privacy, renders police vulnerable to unfounded scrutiny and impacts the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Any videos from Police equipment should only be used in court and/or be released to the public with the approval of all police officers being filmed to protect their privacy. Police Dash Cam, Police and Jail surveillance video videos should only be used to protect Police, not as an internal affairs “gotcha-headhunter” tool. Unauthorized release of the video and audio would impact the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Police officers should be exempt from all making false statements laws
People who have no idea about the job of Law Enforcement should not be deciding the outcome in civil and criminal cases which involve the reasonable officer standard. Police officers should only be tried by a special court composed only of Law Enforcement officers.
“Brady cops” do not exist. Perjury in previous cases should not be a factor in judging a officer’s truthfulness and violates their privacy
It is illegal to make a false accusation against a Police officer.
Police officers accused of misconduct should be notified of all incriminating evidence or witness statements, be able to review it without an investigator looking into their actions during that process and remain silent for a 72 hours cooling off period afterwards. Additionally the officer has 30 days to get an attorney before they can be questioned by superiors, An officer may not be investigated on a misconduct accusation unless it was made within 90 days of the incident.
A complaint against a law enforcement officer that alleges brutality in the execution of the law enforcement officer's duties may not be investigated unless the complaint is sworn to, before an official authorized to administer oaths, by the aggrieved individual, a member of the aggrieved individual's immediate family. an individual with firsthand knowledge obtained because the individual was present at and observed the alleged incident or the parent or guardian of the minor child, if the alleged incident involves a minor child.
Unless a complaint is filed within 90 days after the alleged brutality, an investigation that may lead to disciplinary action under this subtitle for brutality may not be initiated and an action may not be taken.
Before an interrogation, the law enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed in writing of the nature of the investigation.
The interrogation shall take place at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct or police unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer or at another reasonable and appropriate place. The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably when the law enforcement officer is on duty and h) Conduct of interrogation.-
All questions directed to the law enforcement officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through one interrogating officer during any one session of interrogation. (23) Each session of interrogation shall be for a reasonable period; and allow for personal necessities and rest periods as reasonably necessary. Threat of transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action prohibited.- The law enforcement officer under interrogation may not be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action.
A complete record shall be kept of the entire interrogation, including all recess periods, of the law enforcement officer. The record may be written, taped, or transcribed. On completion of the investigation, and on request of the law enforcement officer under investigation or the law enforcement officer's counsel or representative, a copy of the record of the interrogation shall be made available at least 10 days before a hearing.
It is illegal to engage in Contempt of Cop behavior, taunting, provoking, disrespecting the law enforcement officer or questioning their knowledge of the Law.
Amendment to the US Constitution that the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights. takes precedent over other "Civil Rights" in the Bill of Rights.
I am sure that the Federal Law Enforcement Bill of Rights, that will grant and protect the special rights that Law Enforcement needs and deserves, would have the full support and backing of all Law Enforcement and Police groups and unions. 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was one of the chief proponents of a Police Officer's Bill of Rights.
I await your response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)