Appellate Politics and qualified immunity: The 11th shows its stupidity in hiding its activism

A number of blogs are buzzing about Buckley v. Haddock, an unpublished decision from the Eleventh Circuit.  In this case, some cop handcuffed and tased the shit out of some guy on the side of the road.  The Eleventh splits in hilarious ways on an excessive force claim, and then tries to cover up its silliness by not publishing the opinion.  Obviously the plaintiffs was poor and probably didn’t know the first thing about going to law school and using OSCAR to become a clerk, and, besides, poor people need to be shocked. 

Now, if you don’t know how qualified immunity works, stop here. 

Anyway, Judge Edmondson writes the court’s opinion that says essentially not only was there no constitutional right violated, but the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.  Judge Edmondson tries to sound all scholarly, but his opinion can’t be taken too seriously.  So, whatever the case, the denial of summary judgment is reversed.

Judge Dubina writes a one paragraph opinion saying in essence, “The Force was excessive, but the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.”  This is actually a bit more of a tenable conclusion, because, as a legal matter, qualified immunity isn’t even an issue unless you conclude that a constitutional right was violated.  In fact, this seems to indicate that Edmondson was being extremely judicially active in deciding an issue that didn’t even need to be decided.  After all, if there was no excessive qualified immunity isn’t an issue.  You don’t see juries in assault cases saying “There was no assault, and it was self defense.” 

Judge Martin of the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation, says they are both full of it.  The force was excessive, and the officer knew damn well that he was violating someone’s constitutional rights.

Okay, what is the holding?

First of all, one can easily argue that there is no holding.  Even though the discussions are fairly extensive, and go on for 38 pages, someone will say, “but it is unpublished.”

Second of all, there is a split in the majority as to whether it was excessive force or not.  Obviously Judge Edmondson  (or, more likely, his clerks) just like the idea of the cops assaulting people.  But Judge Dubina wants to give the cops a “free bite” by saying “now you know that shocking poor people three times when they are in handcuffs is excessive force” consider yourself on notice.  But, since Edmondson is writing the opinion, the cops will be told by other law school graduates to “go ahead and shock people – it just won’t violate the constitution.” 

So, who out-maneuvered who here?  Whose idea of the proper interaction between the cops (sworn to protect people like me) and the poor people carries the day?  Or, is the fact that it was unpublished, the final political blow that will leave the real issue of how much poor people should be shocked for another panel?

Comments

[Mike]

The video is on YouTube now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWC7iSGCk-s

I'm hoping to sit around with Judge Edmondson, and munch some popcorn while watching the video with him. Watching a crying poor person get tazed is legalized snuff.

Thanks, Judge Edmondson, for letting destitute poor people know that if they don't move like the cattle that they are, they will be prodded. Poor people really need to learn their place in society.

[John O'Sullivan]

This case typifies the crass stupidity of the intellectually challenged presiding over American courts today.
Adding my own two cents I can relate a similarly shocking account.I am an advocate currently fighting to uphold the principles of due process in a disturbing case concerning the rape, battery and near killing of a mother of one left permanently disabled with a broken neck.
Barbara Bracci was a long-serving and respected New York State corrections officer who claimed she was brutally attacked by her work supervisor, Captain William E. Peek. Bracci made tape recordings she claimed were of her remorseful attacker confessing to his crimes. She alleged the NY State Dept. of Corrections (DOC) took the tapes from her then conspired with a crooked judge to illegally withhold them from a New York court.
The case first appeared before the New York Division of Human Rights (SDHR) in 2007. Bracci wanted her original tapes played in open court. DOC defied court orders and refused to give the tapes back to her. Instead the state defense counsel gave them instead, to the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) who inexplicably refused to let them be heard.
In a stunning piece of injustice the ALJ then took the tapes behind closed doors and weighed them secretly (ex parte, in camera) despite Bracci’s protests. Thereupon the ALJ ruled the tapes ‘unreliable’ and the case was dismissed. A perplexed Bracci protested and the matter went before the Appellate Division, Third Department earlier this year as an Article 78 special proceeding. Inexplicably, the tapes somehow became 'lost' and a tongue-tied (In)Human Rights declined to explain their actions in the higher court. So with Bracci having proof her tapes were now destroyed and with the opposing party declining to defend themselves, she duly filed for summary judgment.
However, out of left field the Appellate justices made the Article 78 special proceeding ‘disappear’ and simply upheld the lower court’s judgment dismissing Bracci’s claim on May 14, 2009.
Thus a New York higher court had not only condoned the secret weighing of evidence and then its destruction, it had unlawfully removed Bracci's status as a litigant in an Article 78 special proceeding.
Even a layperson looking at the court’s website under ‘Bracci-v-State Division of Human Rights’ (Case no: 506150) can see that nowhere does the term, ‘Article 78’ even appear. http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2009/506150.pdf
Thus this raped, abused and permanently scarred woman was outrageously cheated of her most basic rights to due process. Now Bracci is filing with the Court of Appeals. We shall soon see if the very highest court in New York dares be as corrupt.
You see, I’m British and I grew up with a worldview of America as an honorable civilization. Like most people in the English-speaking world I was greatly influenced by Hollywood movies. I confess I have now learned that real 'American Justice' is quite different from what I saw in films. It appears your country has forgotten the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Law is practiced very differently today and ‘American Justice’ is a fiction told in Hollywood.