Court: No Immunity for Officers Who Arrested Pro-Life Advocates

[Pro_Life_News]

RICHMOND, Virginia, October 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit Monday upheld a district court decision that denied the request of several Maryland state police officers to be immune from a lawsuit filed by attorneys representing pro-life advocates. The…

Full article…

 

[pnewton]

Sue, sue, everyone wants to sue.

The problem is that these officers faced being sued regardless of what action they took. If they had taken no action, then they could well have been sued for much more in the event that these protesters were seen as a cause in a fatality accident. This was a 55mph highway they were on. In which case, the protesters themselves might also have been sued if there actions were to contribute to an accident. The troopers did not respond until there had been complaints. If they are deemed to have responded because of the content, then they are culpable in enforcing a violation of the 1st Amendment. If they responded as a matter of public safety, not so much. Free speech does not extend to the point where it can jeopardize public safety. That is why one can not yell, “Fire” in a movie theater.

However, the officer’s still may be held culpable for an improper arrest, and probably for an improper strip search, if they did indeed strip search pre-trial detainees without cause.

 

[NguyenKimPhat]

Will the officers be put into court? What will happen to the officers? Will they be punished?

 

[SamH]

The problem is that these officers faced being sued regardless of what action they took. If they had taken no action, then they could well have been sued for much more in the event that these protesters were seen as a cause in a fatality accident. This was a 55mph highway they were on. In which case, the protesters themselves might also have been sued if there actions were to contribute to an accident. .

Wrong. They were on the side of a highway and they were asked to move - which they did. From the story:

In August 2008, at least 12 state, county, and city police officers handcuffed the 18 pro-life advocates in Defend Life’s “Face the Truth” Pro-Life Tour. They had started their peaceful pro-life event along a public road in Harford County **but relocated to the town of Bel Air **after being told by officers to leave the county for not having a county permit. The officers then arrested them in Bel Air without explanation.

Once in custody, three young women among the group arrested -** two of whom were teenagers - were subjected to two rounds of strip searches**. Only after the strip searches and a night spent in jail were they told why they were arrested. A week after their release, the state dropped the charges ultimately filed against them: loitering, disorderly conduct, and failure to obey a lawful order.

Their arrest had nothing to do with public safety. Sue 'em.

 

[pnewton]

Wrong. They were on the side of a highway and they were asked to move - which they did. From the story:

It is good to read the news from other sources. I have found LifeSiteNews one of the more biased and inaccurate of pro-life sources. Yes, the group move, two miles down the highway, still on the same highway, just inside the city limits and near an intersection. It is worth consideration that their new situation was as dangerous, or more so, than the first. Here is a link to the brief.
pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/091737.U.pdf

Their arrest had nothing to do with public safety.

I guess that remains to be seen.

Sue 'em.

The new motto of America.

 

[vz71]

It is good to read the news from other sources. I have found LifeSiteNews one of the more biased and inaccurate of pro-life sources. Yes, the group move, two miles down the highway, still on the same highway, just inside the city limits and near an intersection. It is worth consideration that their new situation was as dangerous, or more so, than the first. Here is a link to the brief.
pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/091737.U.pdf

Thanks for the link. It supplies a great deal more then lifesite.
Having read it though, I find myself a little irritated at the dishonesty on display on the part of the officer.

These people moved their demonstration into city limits believing they had followed the orders given. After all, they were told to “leave the county” on the basis that they had no county permit for the demonstration.

From my POV, the whole incident could have been avoided had the officer been honest to begin with. Do I agree with the suit? Maybe. It depends on what exactly is being asked for.

I believe justice could be served taking the dishonest officer and permenately removing him from the police force.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Thanks for the link. It supplies a great deal more then lifesite.
Having read it though, I find myself a little irritated at the dishonesty on display on the part of the officer.

These people moved their demonstration into city limits believing they had followed the orders given. After all, they were told to “leave the county” on the basis that they had no county permit for the demonstration.

From my POV, the whole incident could have been avoided had the officer been honest to begin with. Do I agree with the suit? Maybe. It depends on what exactly is being asked for.

I believe justice could be served taking the dishonest officer and permenately removing him from the police force.

:clapping:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

It is good to read the news from other sources. I have found LifeSiteNews one of the more biased and inaccurate of pro-life sources. Yes, the group move, two miles down the highway, still on the same highway, just inside the city limits and near an intersection. It is worth consideration that their new situation was as dangerous, or more so, than the first. Here is a link to the brief.
pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/091737.U.pdf
I guess that remains to be seen.
The new motto of America.

See the post above this one.

One comment----the Maryland Supreme Court apparently sees merit in these protester’s allegations, whatever you may think, since they refused to shield these Officers from prosecution and refused to dismiss the case last year.

So apparently THEY definitely think “something’s up” here.

 

[pnewton]

One comment----the Maryland Supreme Court apparently sees merit in these protester’s allegations, whatever you may think, since they refused to shield these Officers from prosecution and refused to dismiss the case last year.

There is merit in them. But more to the point, from the eyes of the Maryland Supreme Court, there is merit in not granting them qualified immunity. This is the ruling of the court, not support of the protesters petition,* yet. *That decision still remains to be made. At this time, we have news of a point of law, not a point of life.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

There is merit in them. But more to the point, from the eyes of the Maryland Supreme Court, there is merit in not granting them qualified immunity. This is the ruling of the court, not support of the protesters petition,* yet. *That decision still remains to be made. At this time, we have news of a point of law, not a point of life.

True. Looking forward to a succesful legal resolution for these protesters.

 

[Paul1961]

As a Marylander living about 30 minutes from BelAir, a bit of information to clarify.

The “highway” was not an interstate like I-95, which is nearby. It is a divided road with a grassy median; two lanes in each direction. At regular intervals, there are traffic lights and extra turn lanes. Along the road are shopping centers and restaurants. So, yes, this is a major road but not a “highway” in the way most people use the term.

 

[vz71]

There is merit in them. But more to the point, from the eyes of the Maryland Supreme Court, there is merit in not granting them qualified immunity. This is the ruling of the court, not support of the protesters petition,* yet. *That decision still remains to be made. At this time, we have news of a point of law, not a point of life.

Right.
In the courts words…

The troopers contend that a reasonable officer confronted with the same situation as were they at the second demonstration would have believed that there was probable cause to arrest. The Eighth Circuit has decided a case with almost identical facts to the case at bar. The plaintiffs in Frye v. Kansas City Police Dep’t, 375 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2004), were pro-life demonstrators who were arrested under a Kansas City ordinance that made it “unlawful for any person to . . . stand . . . either alone or in concert with others in a public place in such a manner so as to [o]bstruct any public street, public highway . . . by hindering or impeding the free and uninterrupted passage of vehicles, traffic, or pedestrians.” Id. at 788. The court held that the arresting officers “reasonably interpreted the ordinance as prohibiting conduct which distracted drivers and thereby obstructed a public street by ‘hindering or impeding the free and uninterrupted flow of traffic.’”

Seems to me the protesters are being arrested based on one law, but the officer initially led them to believe another law was being violated.
Remember, in the first protest, the officer did not mention traffic flow at all. He mentioned the lack of a permit (a fictional permit) for the protest.
And then advised the protestors to leave the county for lack of a permit from the county.
Later we see these same people now having moved to within city limits.
And the officer is arresting based upon obstruction of traffic.

It matters not what exactly was being protested. It could be pro-lifers, or gay activists, or environmentalists crying about the fate of the dodo bird.
The fact that the officer led them to believe the problem was a county permit that did not exist in the first place is an issue.

I hope the courts see that for what it is and resolve it.

There is already too much distrust of police officers. We do not need reason for more.