Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor says police shoot first, think later and get away with atrocities.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently favored the Houston Police Department in Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston. However, it didn’t go so smoothly. At the outset there was only ruling on a he said/she said kind of basis. Based on lack of evidence and diametrically opposing accounts, SCOTUS was divided in their views of this case. Although the majority concurred with the Houston police account, Obama-appointed Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented and had sharp remarks regarding how they feel about the police.
At the core of Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston was testimony from Houston police Officer Chris Thompson indicating that he feared for his life. After a roadside struggle during which Salazar-Limon resisted arrest, turned and walked away from verbal commands to stop, then reached for his waistband, Officer Thompson shot Salazar-Limon. In deposition, Officer Thompson described actions consistent with someone attempting to produce a weapon during lawful detention and evading arrest. In a nutshell, the question is whether Officer Thompson was justified in shooting Salazar-Limon or not.
Qualified immunity
When allegations of unconstitutional police conduct are filed, the legal tenet known as “qualified immunity” is engendered, often presented to SCOTUS for judicial ruling.
Defined by judicial precedents involving erroneous lawsuits against the police, qualified immunity grants discretion in due process proceedings involving law enforcement officials, and lends consideration to the unique circumstances confronted by cops in the course of fulfilling the duties of their jobs. In essence, it engenders the constructs and mindset of a police officer whose personal and professional constitutions are scrutinized pertaining to accusations of excessive force or questionable deadly force.
Qualified immunity precedent was set forth in the SCOTUS decision Harlow v. Fitzgerald, in which the Court conceded: “…government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
In Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, Justice Sotomayor stipulates the following into record: “Only Thompson and Salazar-Limon know what happened on that overpass on October 29, 2010. It is possible that Salazar-Limon did something that Thompson reasonably found threatening; it is also possible that Thompson shot an unarmed man in the back without justification. What is clear is that our legal system does not entrust the resolution of this dispute to a judge faced with competing affidavits. The evenhanded administration of justice does not permit such a shortcut. Our failure to correct the error made by the courts below leaves in place a judgment that accepts the word of one party over the word of another. It also continues a disturbing trend regarding the use of this Court’s resources. We have not hesitated to summarily reverse courts for wrongly denying officers the protection of qualified immunity in cases involving the use of force.”
With that, she plied her dissenting opinion, lamenting further: “The erroneous grant of summary judgment in qualified-immunity cases imposes no less harm on ‘society as a whole,’ than does the erroneous denial of summary judgment in such cases. We took one step toward addressing this asymmetry in Tolan (572 U. S.). We take one step back today.”
Sotomayor’s Salazar-Limon dissent is not her first foray into questioning how Courts rule on matters alleging police conduct.
In another Texas case which involved a state trooper shooting and killing a fleeing motorist, Justice Sotomayor dissented and rendered some acerbic words. In her opinion, Justice Sotomayor injected the premises that cops are inherently gun-toting menacing figures in uniform who, by her own words–“shoot first, think later”–and get away with atrocities. In Chadrin Lee Mullenix v. Beatrice Luna (on behalf of Estate of Israel Leija, Jr.), Sotomayor wrote: “By sanctioning a ‘shoot first, think later’ approach to policing, the Court renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment hollow.”
In Chadrin Lee Mullenix, the suspect fled from local police before an arrest warrant was served upon him. During the pursuit, Leija twice called Tulia police and asserted he was armed and would kill any cops. That information was relayed by Tulia dispatchers to law enforcement officers involved in the pursuit. Ahead of the pursuit route, Trooper Mullenix took a position on an interstate overpass, armed with a rifle, and shot six rounds. Four struck Leija, effectively killing him. Sotomayor dissented from the majority, citing that Trooper Mullinex, with other less-lethal options (stop sticks) available to him, flagrantly violated Leija’s Fourth Amendment rights. Sotomayor dissented in the Court’s rendering of qualified immunity for Trooper Mullinex.
It is relatively easy to armchair quarterback the actions of law enforcers out in the field who often are subjected to inexplicable perils themselves. Without attempts to bolster any police misconduct or to ill-conceive all the variables of any case, I turn to the myriad good deeds routinely performed by the nation’s cadre of cops.
Ultimately, judicial officers and judgeships made by appointment come with the expectation of reasonability doctrines and objective applications of the US Constitution, paramount of which is to abstain from bias. When the highest Court in the land seems to have judicial officers seemingly opposed to the police institution, we have a problem. And it’s not just Houston’s problem, it is all of ours. Serving as the framework of social expectations and behavioral order, judicial rulings impact us all.
In Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, a Texas cop had a legal dilemma. With Justice Sotomayor’s insinuation that the police are getting away with unjust incidents, it appears the nation’s law enforcement community may find itself in her crosshairs. So be it! That is where such perspectives should play out…and become record (precedent).
Is Lady Justice too lopsided? Are we somehow coddling cops too much? Or is there implicit bias on the bench?
