The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) filed
a new legal brief in a case before the United States Supreme Court
on January
13, 2010.
The case, Jensen v. Stoot, 09-728, involves
an appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The issue involves personal civil liability for
law enforcement officers who are alleged to have interrogated
a suspect in what is later deemed an unconstitutional manner.
Several courts have ruled that when a defendant's involuntary
statement is actually used in criminal court against the defendant,
the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights are violated at that point,
and the officer involved in the original interrogation is now
liable. Other courts have held that this issue has to be
looked at under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause,
and that only misbehavior by the officer that rises to such a high level that due process is violated can
lead to officer liability. This second way of looking at
it would be true regardless of whether the statement is ultimately
used against the defendant in court. This second type of
legal analysis provides more security and protection to officers,
and this is what NAPO is arguing to the Supreme Court that
they should adopt as a standard. We will keep you posted
on developments in the case.
