The Supreme Court sided with police officers in two separate excessive force cases, ruling that the officers in both cases were protected from lawsuits by “Qualified Immunity” legal protection.
“Qualified Immunity” has become a hot topic in debates around police reform. According to the Supreme Court, Qualified Immunity “shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”
Qualified Immunity applies to cases “when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
The two cases, Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna and City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma v. Rollice, were decided Monday morning in per curiam decisions, made by the whole court.
In the first case, Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, a 911 operator responded to a call from a 12-year-old girl who said her mother’s boyfriend, the respondent Cortesluna, was using a chainsaw to damage the house, and that the girl, her mother, and her older sister had barricaded themselves in a room because they were afraid that the man was going to hurt them.
Rivas-Villegas, the petitioner, was one of five police officers who responded to the scene. Officers canvassed the house and spotted a man matching the suspect’s description. After confirming with the dispatch that the women could not get out, police entered the home and confronted the suspect. Police noticed a knife in the left pocket of the suspect and ordered him to keep his hands up. When the suspect defied orders, police shot him twice with beanbag rounds. The suspect then complied with orders to get on the ground. Officer Rivas-Villages then knelt down, placing his left leg on the suspect’s back, near the pocket where the knife was. Another officer removed the knife from the suspect’s pocket, and, once handcuffed, the suspect was taken away.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rivas-Villegas violated precedent which “put him on notice that his conduct constituted excessive force,” but the Supreme Court ruled that the precedent, LaLonde v. County of Riverside, was materially different from the case, and therefore insufficient to make clear that the officer’s force was excessive. The Court ruled that Rivas-Villegas was therefore covered under Qualified Immunity.
In the second case, City of Tahlequah v. Rollice, three local police officers responded to a 911 call from a woman whose ex-husband, the respondent Rollice, was intoxicated and would not leave.
Officers approached Rollice at the house and talked with him. Rollice seemed nervous and said he was worried about going to jail, but the officers assured him they just wanted to give him a ride when Rollice started fidgeting with his hands. He then stepped toward a set of tools on a workbench, while still conversing with officers, where he grabbed a hammer and held it towards the officers. The officers told him to drop the hammer, but he stepped out from behind a piece of furniture, giving him a clear path to one of the officers, and raised the hammer over his head as if he were going to throw it or charge the officers.
Two officers shot Rollice, killing him.
The Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeals ruled against the officers, but SCOTUS ruled that the precedent cited by the Lower Court was wholly irrelevant to the case and therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.