Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity for First Amendment Violation

by July 21, 2023
July 21, 2023

Joshua A. Katz

A civil society might require police, but a free society requires they be accountable for wrongdoing while on the job. Too often, though, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects officers who exceed their authority, such as by arresting citizens who criticize them despite that speech being protected by the First Amendment. Happily, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity in just that circumstance. A unanimous panel, speaking through Judge David M. Ebel, took the step of finding an officer’s conduct to not only violate the Constitution, but also to be unprotected by qualified immunity.

John Jordan’s nephew, J.J., had a car accident while driving Jordan’s company truck. Jordan went to the scene to help. While officers questioned J.J., Jordan kept his distance and watched, but eventually grew annoyed with the way the officers were questioning J.J. He asked the officers if they were “taking a statement or…giving a statement.” The officers did not like their authority being questioned, and, after a brief verbal exchange, one of the officers forcibly arrested Jordan, whose face was pressed into the ground during the arrest. (Like the opinion, I am giving Jordan’s version, because that’s the relevant version at this stage.) Jordan was charged with obstruction of justice and resisting arrest, but the charges were dropped.

Jordan sued for unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, and violation of religious freedom, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A magistrate judge held the officers were protected by qualified immunity for the first three claims but not the fourth. The Tenth Circuit reversed on all three, holding the officers not entitled to qualified immunity.

The Court first held that there was no probable cause because Jordan had a First Amendment right to criticize. “[T]he First Amendment does not protect only quiet and respectful behavior towards police; it protects loud criticism that may annoy or distract the officer.” Based on Supreme Court caselaw, this was not a close question. Since the behavior was constitutionally protected, there was no probable cause for the arrest.

Next, it found that the officers violated clearly established law because there was not even arguable probable cause. The Supreme Court had clearly established just the right at issue. It also held, citing a Tenth Circuit case, that speech protected by the First Amendment cannot be the basis for probable cause. Then it found that Jordan’s speech was within the bounds of clearly established First Amendment law. Therefore, “no reasonable officer could have believed they had arguable probable cause for arrest.” So there was no qualified immunity for the unlawful arrest charge.

The magistrate’s only basis for finding qualified immunity for the malicious prosecution charge was the conclusion that the officers had probable cause, so the Court reversed this holding as well.

Finally, the Court held that the force applied was unconstitutionally excessive because the alleged crime was minor, there was no threat to the safety of the officers or others, and Jordan was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee (indeed, he was attempting to remain). It then held that the excessive force violation was one of clearly established law, citing to its prior caselaw establishing that physical force similar to that used here was unlawful when “the arrestee poses no threat, puts up no resistance, and does not attempt to flee.”

The Court was correct to hold the officers accountable for their abuse of power. Such pushback against the all‐​too‐​common grant of qualified immunity is welcome. Even more welcome would be a rethinking of this atextualist doctrine the Supreme Court has read into § 1983, or the passing of new legislation by Congress to do away with it.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Watch the Ebb and Flow — This Market NEEDS a Break!
next post
Machete fight leads to arrest of three Guatemalan illegal immigrants in Boston suburb, now in ICE custody

You may also like

Do New Tariff Cut Offers Validate Trump’s Approach...

April 1, 2025

Why I Signed the Economists’ Amicus Brief Challenging...

July 30, 2025

Can Managed Care Reel in Idaho’s Spiraling Medicaid...

July 13, 2023

Justice Delayed: Federal Indigent Defense Funding Crisis Continues

August 13, 2025

Memo to Congress: Before Acting on FISA, Get...

February 9, 2024

If Student Loans Are Removed From the Department...

April 1, 2025

The Same First Amendment That Protects Lorie Smith...

July 13, 2023

United States v. Pierre Brief: Categorical Felon Disarmament...

January 6, 2025

Election Policy Roundup

April 1, 2025

Government Versus Private Vaccine Mandates

March 5, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Marcus Rashford’s The Rest Is Football interview smashes records with 1.4m streams in 48 hours

      August 17, 2025
    • Trump closes out 30th week in office with ‘very warm’ high-stakes Putin meeting

      August 16, 2025
    • State Department stops issuing all visitor visas for individuals from Gaza

      August 16, 2025
    • Zelenskyy outlines peace demands before high-stakes White House meeting with Trump

      August 16, 2025
    • Putin backs Trump’s claim that the Ukraine war would not have happened if he’d won 2020 election

      August 16, 2025
    • ROBERT MAGINNIS: What comes next for US, Russia and Ukraine after Alaska summit

      August 16, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,799)
    • Investing (2,217)
    • Politics (16,400)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved