From Chicago Sun-Times · · 1m 50s
Rulings on traffic stop, child custody case uphold civil rights
Federal courts reject qualified immunity in traffic stop and child custody cases.
In brief
Federal courts reject qualified immunity in traffic stop and child custody cases. Two federal appeals courts ruled police and a judge violated constitutional rights in traffic stops and child custody cases despite qualified immunity claims. Originally reported by Chicago Sun-Times.
Qualified immunity doctrine
Federal courts allow officials to avoid accountability for constitutional rights violations unless they break clearly established law.
“Since 1982, thanks to the court-invented doctrine of qualified immunity, such claims have been allowed only when they allege violations of "clearly established" law.”
Alexandria traffic stop case
Police detained Mario Rosales and Gracie Lasyone for 21 minutes after falsely accusing them of drug crimes during a traffic stop.
“The cops ordered Rosales and Lasyone, his girlfriend, out of the car and detained them for 21 minutes, during which they grilled the couple about illegal drugs, frisked Rosales and instructed him to empty his pockets.”
5th Circuit ruling
The 5th Circuit court found the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment due to fabricated traffic violations and improper detention.
“Terrell and Lewis had failed both of those tests.”
Fourth Amendment standards
Police may detain someone only if they reasonably suspect criminal activity and may frisk only if they reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous.
“The Supreme Court said police may detain someone only if they reasonably suspect he is involved in criminal activity and may frisk him only if they reasonably suspect he is "armed and dangerous."”
Taney County child custody case
A judge jailed two children for 20-40 minutes after they refused to return home with their mother during a custody hearing.
“The time spent in the holding-cell area was between twenty and forty minutes.”
8th Circuit ruling
The 8th Circuit court ruled the children's detention violated the Fourth Amendment due to lack of probable cause.
“Their confinement clearly violated the Fourth Amendment.”
Fourth Amendment precedent
The 8th Circuit emphasized that warrantless arrests without probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment, even in unusual cases.
“It is clearly established that a warrantless arrest, unsupported by probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment.”
Qualified immunity challenge
The officers claimed constitutional violations were not clearly established despite the long-standing legal precedent.
“Terrell and Lewis argued that "any constitutional violation arising from the traffic stop was not clearly established."”
Judge's custody actions
Judge Eric Eighmy jailed children after they refused to return home with their mother during a custody hearing.
“Judge Eric Eighmy intervened, telling the children they had to leave with their mother and repeatedly warning them that they could end up in foster care if they refused to do so.”
Legal precedent applied
The courts applied the same Fourth Amendment standards to both cases despite the unusual circumstances.
“We are not concerned about the lack of a prior case with "fundamentally similar" facts.”
Consequence for officials
Police and judges may still face accountability for constitutional rights violations even when they act in novel ways.
“Officials may still be held accountable when they flout long-standing constitutional principles, even when they do so in novel ways.”
What to remember
Two federal appeals courts ruled police and a judge violated constitutional rights in traffic stops and child custody cases despite qualified immunity claims.
