U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
“The courts below have seriously deceived this fundamental tenet of our qualified doctrine of immunity,” Alito wrote in the CEO’s ruling.
Jacob Dominguez was unarmed and followed the officer’s instructions when he was a police sergeant in San Jose. Michael Pina shot and killed him in a 2017 traffic parking. When he was shot, his head, shoulders and left arm were above the frame of the driver’s side door. Police are trying to arrest him at a gas station robbery, with no evidence that he was armed at the time of the incident, according to civil court records.
Dominguez’s legacy sued Pina and the department, winning $1 million in 2023 after a federal civil jury found the officer used too much force.
Pina’s lawyer argued that he and the San Jose Police Department were protected by qualified immunity, a legal principle that kept government officials from most civil lawsuits.
But U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman disagreed, partly because the 9th Circuit ruling in Peck vs. Montoya, deputies shot and killed a warlike blind man in response to a 911 call.
According to Alito, the problem is that the case has been confirmed for five years back Pina Shot Dominguez.
“While Peck was decided after the events that occurred in our case, the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of what was clearly established when the incident occurred was helpful,” Freeman wrote. “Pek’s decision maintained the precedent of Cruz vs. Anaheim in another traffic stop case.
The Court of Appeal also cites the ruling held by Peck in a ruling that was not published last year.
“A reasonable jury may find that Dominguez didn’t seem to reach for the weapon when Officer Pena fired at him,” the appeals panel wrote in May. “In this case, deadly force is unreasonable.”
The official’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
The Supreme Court Justice declared the appeal panel in his objection, saying that it was working “ham feet” and said the judge “brutally treated” qualified immunity and “sneakyly” introduced the footnotes of the decision to their ruling.
“To overcome qualified immunity, a party must show that an officer violated a federal right, which is in the [the] Alleged misconduct,” Alito wrote. “This requirement ensures that officials do not bear the litigation burden or bear the burden of the conduct without notifying that such conduct is illegal. ”
In other words, Pina didn’t know that killing Dominguez would put him in civil lawsuits because liability has not been determined.
“This is a decision that illustrates the ridiculous nature of qualified immunity,” said Joanna C. Schwartz, a police misconduct litigation expert at UCLA Law School. “You have to find facts that the concept of a previous court decision was almost the same to establish the law clearly, which could be a high barrier.”
She said that even if Peck was decided before the shooting, Pena would know this or be able to act on that knowledge under fast moving, high pressure.
This is because smaller but important ways have been changing in smaller but important ways.
“When using force alone, you’re talking about hundreds of related cases,” Schwartz said.
Instead of being asked to remember these gradual changes, the professor said, he taught a wide range of strokes from major shifts in the law.
“The goal is to let them learn how to apply these standards in a variety of situations, rather than being some sort of machine that can make all these court cases facts and possessions.”
Although Alito’s reading of the Court of Appeal’s eligible immunity would unfairly expose the police, Schwartz said her research does not support his claim.
“If the purpose is to protect officials from litigation, it is not done,” she said.
In the case of civil litigation, the qualified immunity also does not protect the police from financial damages, as officials only have less than 1% damages.
“Qualified immunity is neither necessary nor suitable for accomplishing what the Supreme Court said to be achieved,” Schwartz said.
