High-speed pursuit responsibilities and other issues surrounding police activities


Petition this week

This week, we focused on requiring the Supreme Court to consider the relevance of appropriate liability standards for police high-speed driving incidents, training and law enforcement policies in qualifying exemption cases, and the First Amendment to protect the right of recording police to perform official duties in public places.

In 1998, the Supreme Court hold High-speed police pursuits that lead to death due to “intentional or reckless indifference to life” do not infringe substantial due process rights, unless the official intentionally causes harm that is not related to the legally arrested target. Although the U.S. 8th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals follow strict “intentional injury” standards in all cases involving police driving at high speeds, other circuit courts have chosen more objective standards. The U.S. 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals investigate the specific circumstances of each case to determine whether the official has the opportunity to discuss and whether the emergency situation justifies such driving—usually using the deliberate indifference standard Instead of intentionally hurting.

exist Brown v. Burke, Officer Brian Burke drove his cruiser at an average speed of over 90 mph for about 5 minutes, over 60 other vehicles without blue lights or sirens, and then at 98 At a speed of mph, it collided with a bystander vehicle, killing two passengers. Burke claimed that he was looking for an SUV that he had seen speeding earlier. But he did not claim to have been “hunting”, and according to Arkansas State Police’s policy, the pursuit requires “lighting equipment and sirens during the pursuit.” Lori Braun filed a lawsuit in the District Court on behalf of Cassandra Braun, who was killed in the accident. But the district court rejected-relying on the standard of intentional harm-that there was no violation of due process because there was no evidence that the official “intended” to harm anyone. The Eighth Circuit confirmed that it was appropriate to agree to the intentional harm standard and refused to consider whether there was an objective emergency or whether a practical review was conducted.

High-speed driving accidents involving the police cause fatal car accidents in the United States every day, and the analysis of such accidents varies from track to track. The judges were asked to conduct a review to clarify whether the intentional injury culpability standard should be used to resolve all claims arising from high-speed driving accidents, or whether further investigations are required if the situation requires it.

Next, in Fraser v. Evans, The court faced another question about police responsibility and a First Amendment question concerning the rights of record officials. The Denver police have received training and believe that the public has a “right to record them.” In 2014, Levi Frasier took out a tablet to record the quarrel between the police and the suspect, causing the suspect to be taken away by an ambulance. After the persons involved noticed that Fraser had recorded the incident, they approached him and forced him to hand over the equipment, and then searched for the video through it.

Fraser filed a lawsuit in the District Court, claiming that the police officers retaliated against him for filming them, thus violating his First Amendment rights. The district court rejected these officials’ claims that they were entitled to limited immunity, on the grounds that it made no sense to allow cities and counties to avoid liability on the grounds that they had “policies in place” and to allow individual officials to be exempted from liability. Invoking limited immunity on the ground that the law is not clear enough to attract attention. The official appealed, and the 10th Circuit overturned the decision on the grounds that judicial decisions-not training or municipal policy-were the only valid source of clearly established laws, and whether the Circuit Court protected the records of officials performing official duties in the First Amendment There are disagreements regarding the rights in public places. Since the Court of Appeal also ruled that the lower court’s ruling on this issue was not sufficient to clearly establish the rules, it reversed the ruling. Fraser asked the Supreme Court to conduct a review to clarify whether training and law enforcement policies can be used as evidence for qualifying exempt investigations, and whether the right to record police is a right clearly defined in the First Amendment.

These and others Petition this week as follows:

Brown v. Burke
21-10
problem: (1) Should the court apply the intentional injury liability standard to all police driving at high speeds, like the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts, or instead use an analysis of the facts of individual cases to determine whether there is deliberate and applied intentional Indifferent standards or opportunities for standards other than intentional injury are also the same for the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuit Courts; (2) Whether the courts reviewing police high-speed driving behavior should use objective tests to determine whether there is an emergency , Such as the third, fourth and seventh circuits, or relying solely on the police’s claim that he subjectively believes that there is an emergency, the same is true for the eighth circuit.

Hargreaves v. Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc.
21-17
problem: Is the doctrine of fair contention inconsistent with the “almost no hesitation” obligation of the Federal Court to hear and decide cases within its jurisdiction?

Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Committee v. John Doe
21-48
problem(1) Federally detained minor immigrant detainees file a claim for inadequate health care to a safe juvenile detention center, professional judgment rather than deliberate indifference whether it is an appropriate constitutional standard; (2) Minors from safe juvenile detention The center seeks whether the request for injunctive relief for appropriate medical treatment in compliance with the constitution can be corrected by the court without a parent, guardian or legal guardian joining the case.

Fraser v. Evans
21-57
problem: (1) Whether training or law enforcement policies are related to whether police officers are entitled to qualifying exemptions; (2) Since at least 2014, has the First Amendment “clearly established” the right to protect personal records of police officers performing their duties in public.



Source link