support@bluetogold.com
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
RESEARCH
Katz attended a speech by the Vice President to voice opposition to the possibility that an Army hospital might be used for animal experiments. During the speech, Katz attempted to unfurl a banner. Military police officers had been warned by superiors of the possibility of demonstrations, and Katz had been identified as a potential protestor. As Katz began placing the banner on the side of a fence, the military police officers grabbed him from behind, took the banner, and rushed him out of the area. Officers had each of Katz’s arms, half-walking, half-dragging him, with his feet barely touching the ground. Katz was wearing a visible, knee-high leg brace, although one of the officers testified he did not remember noticing it at the time. The officers took Katz to a nearby military van, where, Katz claimed, he was shoved or thrown inside. As a result of the shove, Katz fell to the floor of the van, where he caught himself just in time to avoid any injury. At least one other protester was arrested at about the same time as Katz. The officers drove Katz to a military police station, held him for a brief time, and then released him. Katz sued one of the officers for using excessive force during this encounter.
Whether the military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of excessive force brought by Katz?
Yes. The military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established rule that prevented the officer from using the amount of force that he did in arresting Katz.Even if a constitutional violation occurred, an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right violated was not clearly established at the time. In determining whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right. In excessive force cases, an officer might correctly perceive all of the relevant facts, but have a mistaken understanding as to whether a particular amount of force is legal in those circumstances. If the officer’s mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable, however, the officer is entitled to the immunity defense. In this case, the Court first assumed, for the sake of argument, that a Fourth Amendment violation had occurred. They then addressed whether the military officer should reasonably have known that the force he used in this instance (primarily the shove of Katz into the van, although also in the manner in which he hurried Katz away
Even if a constitutional violation occurred, an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right violated was not clearly established at the time. In determining whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right. In excessive force cases, an officer might correctly perceive all of the relevant facts, but have a mistaken understanding as to whether a particular amount of force is legal in those circumstances. If the officer’s mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable, however, the officer is entitled to the immunity defense.
In this case, the Court first assumed, for the sake of argument, that a Fourth Amendment violation had occurred. They then addressed whether the military officer should reasonably have known that the force he used in this instance (primarily the shove of Katz into the van, although also in the manner in which he hurried Katz away from the speaking area) was excessive under the circumstances. In finding that the officer’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right, the Court relied upon the following: First, the officer did not know the full extent of the threat Katz posed or how many other persons there might be who, in concert with Katz, posed a threat to the security of the Vice President. Second, there were other potential protestors in the crowd, and at least one other individual was arrested and placed into the van with Katz. Third, in carrying out the detention, as it was assumed the officers had the right to do, the officer was required to recognize the necessity to protect the Vice President by securing Katz and restoring order to the scene. Accordingly, it cannot be said there was a clearly established rule that would prohibit using the force the officer did to place Katz into the van to accomplish these objectives. Finally, regarding the shove into the van, the Court reiterated that not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment.
533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001)
© Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved
