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)

Jason Harley Kloepfer guilt of Communicating Threats and Resist, Obstruct, and Delay.

Cherokee County Sheriff's Office  ·

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.

 

 

Cherokee County Sheriff's Office

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.

Following the shooting, my office issued a press release about the event. The release was prepared by the county attorney based on information my office received from CIPD.

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

#cherokeecountync #murphync

  

Press Covers for North Carolina Sheriff’s 'Firing Squad' ~ VIDEO - https://go.shr.lc/3XHzIDV

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.”

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

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.

Judge Woodard must protect hero police officer James Harrison Jr.

https://t.co/ztQG3NTiUV?amp=1

The Watch

No accountability

By Radley Balko 

Opinion writer

September 29, 2014 at 4:01 p.m. EDT

My colleagues on The Post’s editorial board weighed in recently on a Maryland case:

IN PRINCE George’s County, it is now clear that the police, without provocation, can beat an unarmed young student senseless — with impunity. They can blatantly lie about it — with impunity. They can stonewall and cover it up for months — with impunity. They can express no remorse and offer no apology — with impunity.

The agent of this travesty of justice, and this impunity, is Judge Beverly J. Woodard of the Prince George’s County Circuit Court. Judge Woodard has presided in the case involving John J. McKenna, a young University of Maryland student who was savagely beaten by two baton-wielding Prince George’s cops in March 2010, following a men’s basketball game on the College Park campus.

The beating of Mr. McKenna was videotaped; had it not been, the police, who filed no report and then falsely claimed that he instigated the incident and attacked them, may never have been investigated or charged. Yet despite the fact that a jury convicted one of the police officers, James Harrison Jr., of assault nearly two years ago, Judge Woodard has now thrown the verdict out and closed the case.

The judge offered no explanation for her actions … .

There were dozens of witnesses, including police. Yet what followed was an official wall of silence, dishonesty and denial from the department. Mr. McKenna’s injuries, the police initially said, were sustained when he was kicked by a horse.

The cops’ story fell apart when the video surfaced, but even then their stonewalling continued. For months, no one would identify the officers in riot gear who were shown beating Mr. McKenna.

It was only due to the persistence of Mr. McKenna’s lawyers that the cover-up and lies were shredded. At trial, in late 2012, a jury convicted Mr. Harrison on a felony charge of assault. Another officer, Reginald Baker, was acquitted, although he, too, used his baton to beat Mr. McKenna as he lay stunned and defenseless on the ground.

Judge Woodard conducted herself unprofessionally at trial. She failed to disclose an apparent conflict of interest — she had been previously married to a Prince George’s officer who himself was convicted for brutality — until asked about it by a journalist. In court, she exhibited what many observers regarded as overt hostility toward Mr. McKenna, the victim.

Even if the charge had stuck, it’s rather paltry, given the transgressions here. Surely a citizen accused of similar crimes would have been hit with more severe charges. That even the misdemeanor conviction didn’t stick makes this all the more outrageous.

But there’s also a bit more to this story.  There should have been security camera footage of McKenna’s beating. McKenna’s attorneys subpoenaed some 60 hours of video from campus cameras. But curiously missing was the 90 minutes of video from the camera that should have been pointed at the area where McKenna was beaten. Campus police claimed it had already been recorded over. The video was recovered, thanks to a copy recorded by another campus police officer, but the recovered video revealed that the camera had mysteriously been pointed in another direction.

As it turns out, the officer in charge of the campus security video system, Lt. Joanne Ardovini, is married to one of the officers named in the police report about McKenna. If you think that’s all rather convenient, you aren’t alone. Campus police officials then claimed that the video went missing because Ardovini was just too darned conscientious. 

This error would normally have been caught instantly, Dillon said, but in this case, he said the technician’s supervisor — Lt. Joanne Ardovini — had removed herself from the process to avoid a potential conflict of interest: Her husband, Prince George’s County Police Officer John Ardovini, was involved in arresting McKenna on assault charges.

“If she had been part of it, the mistake would have been caught,” Dillon said. But in recusing herself, Dillon added, “she did exactly what she should have done.”

Odd, isn’t it? Because a police officer removed herself from the investigation in order to avoid the appearance of bias in favor of her husband, the police department failed to deliver the precise bit of footage that would have showed that the incident didn’t happen the way the officers, including her husband, claimed it did. A subsequent Maryland State Police investigation also concluded that there was no evidence of a coverup.

So we have police officers who beat an innocent college student, then lied about it. We have a police camera that should have recorded the incident, but for some reason was aimed elsewhere, and footage that went missing but, we’re told, only because the officer who oversees the video system — who happens to be married to one of the accused officers — recused herself. We’re told we can believe this story because it has been verified by investigators who also happen to be police officers. We then have a judge, who was once married to a police officer who was once convicted of brutality, overriding a jury conviction, thus erasing the only accountability to befall any of the state officials implicated. This came after a trial in which the judge failed to disclose her prior marriage, and witnesses say she was openly hostile to the innocent college student who was beaten.

One last point: Were it not for the cellphone videos shot by bystanders, McKenna would likely have been convicted for assaulting the cops and resisting arrest, based on lies told by the officers who beat him. How did Maryland police and prosecutors respond to this? After the incident made headlines, some Maryland public officials responded by harassing and arresting citizens caught recording police with their cellphones and, in some cases, charging them with felonies. Those arrests and harassments have continued, despite assertions from the Maryland attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice, a Maryland state judge and at least two federal appeals courts (though not the one that covers Maryland) that citizens have a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers in public spaces.

McKenna will at least be compensated for his injuries in the form of a $2 million settlement from the county. That settlement will be paid by taxpayers. So after the beating of McKenna, the subsequent police lies and coverup and the numerous illegal arrests that followed, in the end, the only party punished for any of it will be Maryland taxpayers.

4 Minneapolis Hero cops fired in a Rush to Judgement.

The Minneapolis police union asked the public to wait for the investigation to take its course and not to "rush to judgment and immediately condemn our officers.
https://abc7.com/minneapolis-police-video-killing-man-killed-by/6212825/

The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis issued a statement Tuesday saying:

"Now is not the time rush to judgement and immediately condemn our officers. An in-depth investigation is underway. Our officers are fully cooperating. We must review all video. We must wait for the medical examiner’s report. Officers’ actions and training protocol will be carefully examined after the officers have provided their statements. The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis will provide full support to the involved officers. We ask that the community remain calm and let the investigation be completed in full."