• Home
  • About
    • Authors
  • Articles
    • Archives
    • Chaplain
    • Crime & Controversy
    • Community
    • Cop Humor
    • Editorial
    • Op-ed
    • Gear & Technology
    • Investigations
    • Laws & Legal
    • Leadership
    • News
    • Officer Down
    • On Duty
    • Tactics
  • Network
    • Illinois Network
    • Minneapolis Network
    • Tulsa Network
    • Wauwatosa Network
    • Learn more
  • Training
  • Officer Privacy
  • Jobs
  • Contact
No Result
View All Result
Law Officer
Law Officer
No Result
View All Result

SCOTUS Sides with National Police Association Amicus Brief and Reinstates Qualified Immunity for Police Officers

implied consent

United States Supreme Court. (Public domain)

October 19, 2021
Dave SmithbyDave Smith
Share and speak up for justice, law & order...

In the continuing atmosphere of vilifying and “defunding” American law enforcement, it was heartening to see the Supreme Court of the United States reverse the 10th Circuit Court ruling in Bond v. City of Tahlequah;  a ruling that could have had dangerous consequences for both police officers and the citizens they serve.

The National Police Association had filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief with the United States Supreme Court asking that SCOTUS overturn the judge-made rule used in the Bond decision.  The 10th Circuit’s decision in Bond was largely self-referential, deciding that the officers’ use of force should be analyzed from the perspective of whether the officer did anything to instigate or exacerbate the situation leading to the use of force by the officer.  This would have created a whole new standard for evaluating an officer’s use of force to include the unpredictable escalation of force by a subject to counter an officer’s actions.

SCOTUS reiterated that none of the previous decisions relied upon by the Court of Appeals came close to establishing that the officers in the Bond case acted unlawfully. We cannot ask police officers to know the unknowable, especially when making split second use of force decisions, and SCOTUS recognized that.

In other words, in this case just the officers’ act of engaging the suspect was said by the 10th Circuit court to have provoked the suspect into resisting and threatening the officers with deadly force.  The suspect was the ex-husband of the 911 caller, who was so frightened that she called the police, fearing for her own safety. She told the 911 dispatcher “it’s going to get ugly real quick.”  The ex-husband attacked the responding officers with a hammer after they requested numerous times that he drop it.  It seems like a pretty cut and dried case of a deadly threat being met with deadly force.

The Tenth Circuit often seems bent on making police use of force an even a higher liability than it already is for law enforcement, and in this case SCOTUS pushed back, stating “On this record, the officers plainly did not violate any clearly established law.”  SCOTUS also reminded lower courts “not to define clearly established law at too high a level of generality.”  Let’s remember, on every call each police officer has to deal with highly ambiguous situations.  Some are low level risk but many have the potential to be deadly to any officer or citizen and that danger often occurs almost instantaneously.  The level of actual threat faced by a police officer is clear only in retrospect.  It is only once a critical situation is resolved that the actual threat can then be examined, at length, by experts and the courts.  The officer, on the other hand, had to enter the situation without knowing the “actual” threat from the “possible” threats!  On every call, every police officer’s mind is racing with possible outcomes and intensely trying to maintain a situational awareness for ALL the possible threats, and the best options for dealing with them.

Hindsight eliminates all the variables and makes the outcome seem obvious in the eyes of the critics and the courts.  Saying an officer should have done this or that to mitigate the suspect’s actions is an exercise in fantasy.  The officer in any situation involving a human being is dealing with one of the most unpredictable creatures on earth.  To advance or retreat, enter a garage or not, attempt to use a TASER or not, are all only certain in retrospect.  The vast majority of situations in an officer’s career are resolved without force regardless of the actions the officer takes.  It is the suspect who decides the level of force and violence the situation demands.  The court standards for the last few decades have been, “did the officer use a reasonable level of force based on all the facts presented to that officer?”  In other words, “was the force used reasonable based on what the officer believed was happening at the time of the incident?”  The actions and motivation of the officer prior to the force used have never been the issue since the officer couldn’t predict the actions of the subject involved and had to act based on his or her best judgment.  The 10th Circuit court seemed to place the responsibility of “20/20 hindsight” squarely on the shoulders of American law enforcement.

Too often, courts, politicians, and journalists seem to think police work is a science, and we can engineer our responses to a threat, when, in fact, policing is an art and each officer develops an artist’s skill at adapting to a constantly changing environment of challenges and threats.  If a person decides to become an assailant the options for the assaulted officer instantly become limited based on the threats the officer faces.  Failure to respond properly not only has the liability of law suits, prosecution, and discipline, but also the possibility of injury or death!

As can be imagined, the situations that often cause death or serious injury to officers, like domestic disturbance calls, such as the one faced by the officers in this case, are rife with stress and ambiguity.  Will the suspect comply, attack, resist, be intoxicated, aggressive, agreeable, or gone?  Every officer has been trained for such calls and responses, but soon learns on the street no one formula or tactic solves the complex situations created in the dynamic situations they find.

Ultimately, if the lower court’s decision had been upheld traditional police work would have become almost impossible. If law enforcement could no longer operate under the “reasonable officer standard” police officers would have become little more than report takers, forced to merely document the aftermath of violence rather than insert themselves into the middle of it to save lives and property.    To say that an officer should approach or not, should enter or not, should arrest or not, are questions only answered in hindsight and judging an officer in error for not knowing the unknowable is absurd on its face.  We cannot know what someone else is thinking, planning, or feeling and if an officer acts reasonably is a perfect standard for an imperfect world.

The very presence of a police officer can make the intensity of a situation greater, and a large percentage of those arrested are often impaired, distressed, or dealing with mental health issues, adding to the liability and risk to all involved.  The law enforcement officer is always balancing the risks involved for everyone, with a priority to keep themselves safe so they can continue to protect all of those involved.  The motive, thoughts, or intentions of those being dealt with in an enforcement situation are beyond knowing, a fact that SCOTUS recognized in the Bond decision.  SCOTUS also recognized that the officers in this case should not be held civilly liable for acting “reasonably” and within the parameters of policy and training, specifically addressing the officers’ qualified immunity protections.

As a police trainer, this case also reaffirms the need for relevant and frequent use of force training for police officers.  This comes at a time when “hard” skills training is being diminished in many agencies.  Training police officers to deescalate high tension situations or deal more effectively with the mentally ill is incredibly important but not to the detriment of the low frequency/high liability skills training that help keep police officers (and the public) safe.  The “Defund the Police” movement has reduced police training budgets at a time when American law enforcement is dealing with a substantial rise in violent crime nationwide and a 150% rise in ambush attacks on police officers.  This case reaffirms that we cannot hold police officers accountable for a suspect’s decision to escalate force to counter an officer’s actions to try to keep the public and themselves safe!

The case is Bond v. City of Tahlequah, No. 20-1668 before the United States Supreme Court. The NPA’s amicus brief can be read here. The opinion can be read here.


Share and speak up for justice, law & order...
Tags: Bond decisionmust-readSCOTUSU.S. Supreme Court
Dave Smith

Dave Smith

Former police lieutenant Dave Smith is an internationally known speaker, writer and law enforcement expert. Dave completed his college degree at the University of Arizona while fighting forest fires with the “Coconino Hot Shots” and then began his police career with the Tucson Police Department. In 1978 he joined the Arizona Department of Public Safety, holding positions in Patrol, SWAT, Narcotics, Training and Management. In 1980 he developed the popular "JD Buck Savage" video training series, was the lead instructor for the Calibre Press "Street Survival" seminar from 1983 to 1985, and was instrumental in developing Calibre's timeless "Tactical Edge" officer survival book. Dave holds numerous instructor certifications in firearms, defensive tactics, and human performance and is a proven expert witness and consultant.  In 1989, Dave joined the Law Enforcement Television Network (LETN), developing and hosting cutting-edge police, security and public safety training as its Director of Education and was the general manager of Calibre Press until January of 2002. Dave continued to instruct the “Street Survival” seminar through 2012 as its senior instructor, managing the most comprehensive update to the seminar since 2003.  Dave has authored hundreds of articles for publications including Police Chief, Law and Order, The Trainer, Police Marksman, the Calibre Press Newsline, PoliceOne, Officer.com, Law Officer and POLICE magazine.  Dave was the Director of Video Training for the online Police One Academy and both produced and hosted PoliceOne’s award winning “Roll Call Reality Training” segments. He currently trains through Arizona-based “Winning Mind LLC,” is a regular columnist for POLICE magazine, the author of the popular book In My Sights and is a frequent media analyst concerning law enforcement issues.  Dave can be reached via his website at www.jdbucksavage.com or on his Facebook fan page as “JD Buck Savage.”  

Related Posts

Supreme Court

Supreme Court says it can’t find Dobbs leaker

January 21, 2023
Steve Nothem

Texas police officer dies after being struck by vehicle during DUI investigation

October 19, 2022
Bristol officer

Connecticut Inspector General’s Office releases heroic bodycam footage of Bristol officer-involved shooting

October 18, 2022
San Antonio officer

Experts weigh in after 5th San Antonio officer dies by suicide in past 7 months

October 17, 2022
Natalie Young

California police sergeant pins badge on 22-year-old woman he saved as a baby

October 11, 2022
rape

Los Angeles to explore creation of ‘Office of Unarmed Response’ to replace police on certain calls

October 9, 2022
Load More

Latest Articles

SCORPION Unit allegedly had history of violence, poor training, and lacked supervision

January 28, 2023
Chicago officer ambushed

America is hemorrhaging from the heart, but there is a solution

January 28, 2023
Colinford Mattis

Ivy League-educated attorney who helped firebomb NYPD patrol car during riots sentenced to prison

January 28, 2023
Mohamed Ali Elmi

Major drug dealer busted with over 65,000 fentanyl pills in Twin Cities

January 28, 2023
Los Angeles

Police search for gunman after 3 killed, 4 critically wounded in Los Angeles shooting

January 28, 2023
Bahram Hojreh

California water polo coach sentenced to 18 years in prison for sexually assaulting nine teenage athletes

January 28, 2023
Load More

Weekly E-Newsletter

Subscribe—and get the latest news and editorials direct from Law Officer each week!

[newsletter_form type="minimal"]

JOIN THE FIGHT

BE COURAGEOUS

FIND MORE…

Law Officer

© 2021 LawOfficer.com

LawOfficer.com

  • Home
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Corrections
  • Contact

Speak up for justice, law & order

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • Authors
  • Articles
    • Archives
    • Chaplain
    • Crime & Controversy
    • Community
    • Cop Humor
    • Editorial
    • Op-ed
    • Gear & Technology
    • Investigations
    • Laws & Legal
    • Leadership
    • News
    • Officer Down
    • On Duty
    • Tactics
  • Network
    • Illinois Network
    • Minneapolis Network
    • Tulsa Network
    • Wauwatosa Network
    • Learn more
  • Training
  • Officer Privacy
  • Jobs
  • Contact

© 2021 LawOfficer.com