Qualified Immunity & 2016 SCOTUS Decision Enforces Police Misconduct As Acceptable Behavior…

As American police con­tin­ue their dai­ly assault against cit­i­zens of col­or, we ask the ques­tions that the cor­po­rate media will not ask. Literally, every day more and more infor­ma­tion comes to light of police atroc­i­ties against cit­i­zens of the United States, cit­i­zens of col­or. If com­mit­ted by secu­ri­ty forces in oth­er coun­tries, some of these atroc­i­ties would receive rebuke, receive sanc­tions by the United Nations.
Why are these dai­ly human rights abus­es allowed to con­tin­ue with­out any atten­tion from Human Rights Agencies? Where is Amnesty International in all of this, or is it safe to say that Amnesty International and oth­er Fraudulent Agencies that pur­port to care about human rights only care when the offend­ers are Black or Brown?

In the land of the free, judges dish out no-knock war­rants to police on the flim­sy argu­ments (by cops) that if they announce them­selves, they will be in dan­ger. Imagine heav­i­ly armed cops dressed like pow­er rangers with semi-auto­mat­ic weapons and weighed down with ammu­ni­tion, afraid for their safe­ty when they are break­ing down cit­i­zens’ homes, destroy­ing every­thing in sight as they sup­pos­ed­ly search for drugs in a hate-filled frenzy.
The body cam­eras they are sup­posed to acti­vate and wear when inter­act­ing with the pub­lic — they get to decide whether or not they turn them on dur­ing those encounters.
• They decide when to mute the audio.
• They decide what to redact from the record­ings (actions that are the same as tam­per­ing with evi­dence, yet there are absolute­ly no con­se­quences when they erase evi­dence need­ed in court proceedings.
• They get to decide whether record­ings are hand­ed over to the fam­i­lies of their vic­tims, usu­al­ly pro­duced to fam­i­lies after intense court bat­tles even though police are pub­lic employ­ees paid by the tax­pay­ers. The equip­ment is also the prop­er­ty of the tax­pay­ing public.
• Even though there is free­dom of Information laws in the United States, police tend to flout the laws with impuni­ty, basi­cal­ly oper­at­ing out­side the laws that gov­ern every­one else.
• The abil­i­ty of police to flout the laws, com­mit per­jury even in court with­out con­se­quence makes it lit­er­al­ly impos­si­ble for peo­ple of col­or to receive any jus­tice in the courts, even with­out the racial­ly biased pros­e­cu­tors and judges that pop­u­late the American Criminal Justice System.
WATCH THIS VIDEO

https://​www​.face​book​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​8​6​9​7​6​7​8​0​0​1​5​1​333

On what author­i­ty, you ask, can police jus­ti­fy the egre­gious instances of civ­il rights abuse with­out consequence?
In 2016 the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6 – 3 deci­sion that in some cas­es, evi­dence of a crime can be used against a defen­dant even if police obtained it ille­gal­ly. According to the Associated Press, the 5 – 3 deci­sion drew “heat­ed dis­sents from lib­er­al jus­tices who warned that the out­come would encour­age police to vio­late people’s rights.” (ya think?) The rul­ing comes in a case in which South Salt Lake City Police Department nar­cotics detec­tive Douglas Fackrell stopped defen­dant Joseph Edward Strieff in 2006. Fackrell sus­pect­ed Strieff of being involved in drug activ­i­ty but didn’t actu­al­ly have “rea­son­able sus­pi­cion,” required by the U.S. Constitution for inves­ti­ga­to­ry stops.
During ques­tion­ing, Fackrell “relayed Strieff’s per­son­al infor­ma­tion to a police dis­patch­er — a rou­tine prac­tice dur­ing police stops — and learned Strieff had an out­stand­ing traf­fic war­rant.” The detec­tive then arrest­ed Strieff based on that war­rant and found a small amount of metham­phet­a­mine on his per­son; Strieff was charged and con­vict­ed for unlaw­ful pos­ses­sion. On Fackrell, U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her pop­u­lar dis­sent, “In his search for law­break­ing, the offi­cer in this case him­self broke the law.”

Since then, we have seen that police have tak­en these Supreme Court Actions to mean that they have unfet­tered action to do as they please, includ­ing to take life with impunity.
This writer con­tin­ue to main­tain that the Supreme Court con­tin­ues to be a grave threat to the rights and free­doms of the aver­age American.
Coupled with the doc­trine of qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty cre­at­ed by the court, American police offi­cers have a license to abuse the rights of cit­i­zens at will with lit­tle to no fear that they will be held accountable.
We now see police con­duct traf­fic stops by using lies that dri­vers failed to indi­cate before a turn, that the dri­ver hit a yel­low line, was dri­ving unsteady, or any num­ber of lies they dream up to jus­ti­fy their inten­tions to search a cit­i­zen’s auto­mo­bile and run their licens­es for warrants.
We have seen police ille­gal­ly stop motorists and spend an inor­di­nate amount of time hold­ing the motorist hostage as they fish for some­thing to charge the motorist with. These are [not]the actions of a free society.
These actions direct­ly con­tra­vene the Constitutional fourth amend­ment guar­an­tee a cit­i­zen has against ille­gal gov­ern­ment intru­sion into their per­son­al spaces.

In her moral and com­mon­sense dis­sent to the court’s 2016 rul­ing, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said:
The Court today holds that the dis­cov­ery of a war­rant for an unpaid park­ing tick­et will for­give a police officer’s vio­la­tion of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s tech­ni­cal lan­guage: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, and check it for out­stand­ing traf­fic war­rants — even if you are doing noth­ing wrong. If the offi­cer dis­cov­ers a war­rant for a fine you for­got to pay, courts will now excuse his ille­gal stop and will admit into evi­dence any­thing he hap­pens to find by search­ing you after arrest­ing you on the war­rant. Because the Fourth Amendment should pro­hib­it, not per­mit, such mis­con­duct, I dis­sent. I do not doubt that most offi­cers act in “good faith” and do not set out to break the law. That does not mean these stops are “iso­lat­ed instance[s] of neg­li­gence,” how­ev­er. Many are the prod­uct of insti­tu­tion­al­ized train­ing pro­ce­dures. The New York City Police Department long trained offi­cers to, in the words of a District Judge, “stop and ques­tion first, devel­op rea­son­able sus­pi­cion later.”
Most Americans of col­or and even poor­er whites are now liv­ing that dystopi­an night­mare in their every­day lives.
Scoop​.com argues, The United States and its allies do not call the U.S. a “police state,” but, if this phrase has any mean­ing, then it clear­ly does apply, and a strong case can be pre­sent­ed that the U.S. might even be more of a police state than is any oth­er nation on Earth.
In January of 2021, Scoop​.com​.nz reported

Since 2015, police offi­cers have fatal­ly shot at least 135 unarmed Black men and women nation­wide, an NPR inves­ti­ga­tion has found. NPR reviewed police, court, and oth­er records to exam­ine the details of the cas­es. At least 75% of the offi­cers were white. The lat­est one hap­pened this month in Killeen, Texas, when Patrick Warren Sr., 52, was fatal­ly shot by an offi­cer respond­ing to a men­tal health call.

For at least 15 of the offi­cers …, the shoot­ings were not their first — or their last, NPR found. They have been involved in two — some­times three or more — shoot­ings, often dead­ly and with­out consequences.

In fact:

Of the offi­cers involved in the dead­ly shoot­ings of unarmed Black peo­ple over the last five years, 13 were charged with mur­der. Two were found guilty.NPR’s report alleged a num­ber of rea­sons for that “with­out con­se­quences,” but ignored the most impor­tant one: In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court cre­at­ed what is, in prac­ti­cal real­i­ty, a new law, almost a total ban against con­vict­ing a police offi­cer of mur­der if he kills some­one while on the job. The ‘Justices’ called this judge-made law (sub­se­quent­ly reaf­firmed by the Supreme Court many times, the lat­est being in 2020) “qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty,” but it is very close to being total immu­ni­ty, and thus vir­tu­al­ly all of the many abus­es that NPR report­ed there can be traced back to it. Being a main­stream ‘news’-medium, the deep­er lev­el of real­i­ty is cen­sored out by the edi­tors and managers.(scoop.com.nz wrote.)

.

.

.

.

.

.

Mike Beckles is a for­mer Police Detective, busi­ness­man, free­lance writer, black achiev­er hon­oree, and cre­ator of the blog mike​beck​les​.com.