[Imc] [R2Klegal] A Washington Post article on Police Brutality.. (fwd)

[peterm at shout.net]

This is from the email list for people arrested in Philadelphia during the
Republican convention.  It's an important heads-up on police violence and
the courts.
-Peter

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:46:43 -0500
From: robyn <rms213 at psu.edu>
Reply-To: R2Klegal at egroups.com
To: R2Klegal at egroups.com
Subject: [R2Klegal] A Washington Post article on Police Brutality..


Court to Study Force Used by Police

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9809-2000Nov13.html



WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to clarify when police
officers can be held legally responsible for using excessive force while
arresting someone.

The court's decision, expected sometime in 2001, is likely to be of great
importance to police forces nationwide.

Granting a Clinton administration appeal, the justices said they will
consider whether to throw out a civil-rights lawsuit against a military
police officer accused of using excessive force to arrest a demonstrator
during a speech by Vice President Al Gore.

The court said it will review rulings that would allow animal-rights
activist Elliot Katz's lawsuit against Donald Saucier to reach a jury.

Saucier, an Army private, was serving as an MP at a Sept. 24, 1994,
ceremony at the Presidio military post in San Francisco to celebrate the
facility's conversion from an Army base to a national park.

Katz, a 60-year-old veterinarian and president of the group In Defense of
Animals, had arrived at the event early and obtained a seat close to the
speakers' stage. As Gore was speaking, Katz removed a 4-foot by 3-foot
banner from his jacket and unfurled it so Gore and others on the stage
could see it. The banner read, "Please Keep Animal Torture Out of Our
National Parks."

According to Katz's lawsuit, Saucier and another MP grabbed him and
escorted him to a military van and "violently threw" him inside. He was
not hurt.

Katz was taken to a military police station and briefly detained. He was
released without being charged with violating any law or regulation.

A federal trial judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to
dismiss Katz's lawsuit before it reaches a jury, ruling that Saucier is
not entitled to "qualified immunity" for allegedly violating Katz's Fourth
Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures.

The appeals court said the legal test for deciding whether the force used
during an arrest was constitutionally proper is whether it was
"reasonable" -- precisely the same test for deciding whether an arrest
without a court warrant was constitutionally valid.

The Supreme Court last year agreed to resolve that issue but the case the
justices had chosen was subsequently settled out of court.

Justice Department lawyers said a half-dozen other federal appeals courts
have ruled that the test for qualified immunity in such cases is not
identical to the test of reasonableness.

The government's appeal said the 9th Circuit court, by denying Saucier
qualified immunity from Katz's claim, "in effect established a rule that
law enforcement officers making an arrest may use no more force than
absolutely necessary and, in many cases, may use no force at all."

Solidarity Conference
April 6-8, 2001
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/aar/conference.htm




The following words are hidden in this message solely for the purpose of
antagonizing the Penn State e-mail monitoring system and the Federal Echelon
system.  Please ignore them.

Black Bloc, bomb, terrorism, bomb threat, dope, explosive, Waco, drugs, guns,
militia, pot, cocaine, heroin, LSD, assassinate, ammunition, torture, protest,
riot, abortion, marijuana, crack, arson, Ruby Ridge, plastique, GHB,
terrorism,
acid, dynamite, kill, TNT, Anthrax, and assault weapon.

Progressing into the new millenium while regressing to 1984.