SUPREME COURT HEARS CASE OF ALLEGED EXCESSIVE FORCE

NATIONAL POLICE GROUP FILED BRIEF TO PROTECT POLICE
AGAINST FRIVOLOUS CIVIL CASES FOR MAKING ARRESTS

Washington, DC- Tomorrow, March 20th, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a civil rights case, Saucier v. Katz, et al., filed against a law enforcement officer for minimal use of force in making an arrest that did not result in any injury. The Court's decision will effectively determine whether qualified immunity will be available to officers as a defense against being sued when they reasonably believe that the force that they used under the circumstances was lawful. 

The National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. (NAPO) and its affiliate, the National Law Enforcement Officers' Rights Center, filed an amicus curiae brief in January. The brief supports military Police Officer Donald Saucier and law enforcement officers everywhere who are sued by defendants for allegedly using unconstitutionally excessive force. The issue before the Court is, as follows: Can such officers invoke qualified immunity in order to be dismissed from the case before trial, based on the reasonableness of their belief at the time of the incident that the force used was lawful under the circumstances. 

NAPO's Main Points 

NAPO's brief urged the Court to uphold the defense of qualified immunity for police officers, authorizing early dismissals of such cases when trial judges determine that the officers involved reasonably believed that the force used 1) to arrest or restrain a suspect, 2) to prevent a public disturbance, or 3) in self-defense or the defense of others was lawful. We advised the Court that the Ninth Circuit's decision makes qualified immunity depend upon a judge's or jury's determination on the merits of whether there is a constitutional violation, thus eliminating this immunity as a separate defense.

This appellate decision seriously circumvents and undermines the important public interests served by qualified immunity. If not reversed, the decision will cause officers to fear the filing of more lawsuits against them (including many frivolous ones to obtain awards and attorneys fees from the defendant cities or counties), and the greater likelihood of lengthy lawsuits and large damage awards, whenever officers use any force at all. Also, the chilling effect of such litigation upon the officers' duties will have serious consequences for public safety and effective law enforcement; many officers will likely become overly cautious after deciding 

that using any force, let alone deadly force, would not be worth the potential consequences to them and their families (see page three, below).

NAPO's brief concluded that qualified immunity would entitle Officer Saucier to summary judgment. This is because military officers could have reasonably believed that Saucier's specific actions in arresting Respondent Katz, in removing him from the ceremony, and in placing him in a van out of sight, were lawful under these circumstances. Failing to remove Katz quickly could have disrupted the Presidio ceremony, especially if it had encouraged others to register protests, and could have constituted a security risk to the Vice President and other officials. Many police officers could reasonably expect to use this type of force to remove an individual from a crowd to prevent a public disturbance and enforce the law.

Summary of the Facts and Proceedings

Respondent Elliot Katz's claim of excessive force arose out of his arrest at the Presidio military base in San Francisco, California, during a September 1994 ceremony in connection with the conversion of the Presidio to a National Park. Although display of political banners on military bases is prohibited, Respondent Elliot Katz stood up during Vice President Gore's speech, walked to a barrier separating the officials from the audience, and then unfurled a large banner, "Please Keep Animal Torture Out of Our National Parks," protesting alleged animal experimentation at the Army hospital there.

As Katz unfurled the banner, Officer Saucier and Sergeant Steven Parker, both military policemen, approached Katz and each officer took one of Katz's arms and quickly removed him from the seating area. According to Katz, they "started sort of picking me up and kind of walking me out, kind of like very hurriedly." Katz claims that he was then "shoved" into a police van located nearby. While Katz apparently fell headlong into the van and could have been injured, he was not injured because he caught himself in time. After his arrest and detention, Katz was released.

Katz brought this § 1983 action against Officer Saucier, other officials, and the government, alleging that the officers used unconstitutionally excessive force. The Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of Saucier's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and ruled that the reasonableness standard to determine the merits of the unconstitutional-use-of-force claim is identical to the reasonableness-of-belief test for the qualified immunity defense. The Ninth Circuit also rejected Saucier's assertion, based on decisions in four other federal circuit courts of appeal, that the "amount of force used in arresting Katz was so minimal that it was per se reasonable to grant him qualified immunity, and the court stated-incredibly-that, "[N]o reasonable officer could have believed that the amount of force used was lawful." 

Executive Director's Statement

NAPO Executive Director Robert T. Scully stated, "Officers who use any physical force in the performance of their duties-no matter how minimal-will be at risk if this decision is not reversed. In diligently and reasonably pursuing their duties, officers should not have to fear harassing litigation or potential monetary damages, including punitive damages, nor should they be unfairly second-guessed years later and in hindsight by a judge or jury."

Scully continued, "The fear of personal liability can seriously erode an officer's confidence and willingness to act decisively. In addition, officers routinely fear for their continued careers, their physical and emotional health and that of their families, and even sometimes their financial solvency (if not fully indemnified and if the possibility of punitive damages exists) whenever they are named as defendants in lawsuits alleging constitutional violations. It is no wonder that police departments are having difficulty in keeping and recruiting officers, with poor morale being the biggest obstacle to retaining current officers and a major factor in recruiting new ones. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify and reaffirm an important doctrine serving the public interest."

For a copy of the brief or for interviews, please call Stephen McSpadden at 202-842-4420.