it does appear that precedent has been set...
Posted on 03/03/2013 10:24:06 AM PST by netguide
Cape Girardeau police officer ordered to pay fees in flag lawsuit By Scott Moyers ~ Southeast Missourian A federal judge ordered Cape Girardeau police officer Matthew Peters and the state of Missouri to pay more than $62,000 in attorneys' fees and costs in connection to an arrest he made in 2009 for flag desecration.
(Excerpt) Read more at semissourian.com ...
“The court cited the 8th District Court of Appeals in saying a public officer has an obligation to not enforce unconstitutional laws. Peters’ contesting the lawsuit made him liable for the fees, according to federal law.”
Maybe if more police officers are forced to dip into their own pockets as consequence for their actions, their disregard of rights will stop.
Good on the Judge. Cops need to know that enforcing in-Constitutional laws carries a heavy price tag.
The Judge is following federal law. If there is a valid false arrest claim (and this was a bad arrest) then the losing party pays the attorneys fees. It's standard procedure in every federal case like this. For some reason this paper decided to highlight this particular case (I'm shocked). The officer himself won't be paying a dime. It will come from the city for enacting and keeping an idiotic ordinance that's clearly unconstitutional.I am against flag burning as well but the law is clear that it is constitutional. For a city to enact an ordinance basically directing officers that it is illegal to burn a flag is just stupid. I don't know if that is the case here, but am guessing it is. -- Posted by Ck1993 on Fri, Mar 1, 2013, at 5:28 PM
So cops and prosecutors can be held personally liable for enforcing unconstitutional gun laws that state and city politicians are enacting?
The more important ramifications of this might come into play when these state legislatures pass unconstitutional weapons bans.
it does appear that precedent has been set...
Depends on how much the judge respects the law.
“Depends on how much the judge respects the law.”
Haha . . . that can be pretty iffy sometimes.
Yes, on a case level, but if enough of these cases end this way, there will be an impact. Everyone does not have to carry a gun for that to have an impact.
Looks to be a Property Rights case.
Man stood in the front yard that he owns and destroyed a piece of property that he owned.
Tate police and the State of Missouri have no right to interfere with what the man did on his own property.
With all these gun bans in just about every State, cops should be REAL careful about enforcing such laws.
Only true if it is not the Koran or some other Islamic artifact
Try burning an Obama Poster, and see who can win THAT case......
In the case of flag-burners, a neighborhood group could "convince" the perp to go elsewhere with their attention-grabbing episodes.
The public space has legitimate rights to protection from genuine scandal—and I mean as traditionally understood, not PC specialness. This is not inconsistent with free speech (flag-desecration isn't speech anyway), and was never considered so until the insane Supreme Court struck down anti-obscenity laws starting in 1966 with the Fanny Hill decision.
As Adams pointed out, a republican form of government can only survive with a people who are moral and religious. We need to be forthright enough to defend our flag and the 10 Commandments, and our guns as well. We are Americans, and we entitled to the principles of public order and genuine morality.
IMMUNITY
I am sure you have heard ELECTED and APPOINTED officials say, they have immunity from prosecution for any thing they have done wrong. Prosecutors and police officers are notorious for that statement. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case that says they are liable. George D Owen V. City of Independence, Missouri. Decided April 16, 1980. When you look this up scroll down to 25 See, e.g., Globe 365 (remarks of Rep. Arthur) (For Owen v Independence Click (HERE)
George M. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David HAYSE, in his Official Capacity as Judge in Fayette
District Court, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 93-5382.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 6, 1993.
E.D.Ky., No. 92-00510; Forester, J.
E.D.Ky.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Before: GUY and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
George M. Wallace, a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Wallace’s suit was filed against Fayette County District Court Judge David Hayse. Judge Hayse was sued in his official capacity, and Wallace sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The magistrate judge’s report determined that Judge Hayse was absolutely immune from suit because the allegations of Wallace’s complaint indicated that Judge Hayse was acting in his judicial capacity. Over Wallace’s objections, the district judge determined that when a judge is performing an adjudicative function, he is absolutely immune from all suits brought pursuant to Sec. 1983. On appeal, Wallace argues that judicial immunity does not extend to Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.
In Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984), the court concluded “that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity.” See also Berger v. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2416 (1993); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 269 (6th Cir.1984). Therefore, we conclude that the district court committed error when it dismissed Wallace’s suit based upon the determination that Judge Hayse enjoyed absolute immunity against Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
1 F.3d 1243, Wallace v. Hayse, (C.A.6 (Ky.) 1993
You either have free speech or you don't. The First Amendment is there to protect the right of the individual to voice his opinion AND to illustrate it through physical actions as well. You may not agree with it but it is his right to burn the flag in protest. Its what makes this country great.
When the muzzies burn our flag do you run down to the airport fly there and give em hell?
“I don’t see why that’s not fighting words”
For the same reason we don’t let liberals jail you and punish you for saying something negative about their “Lord and Savior”, their “dad”, Obama.
Hell, we could REQUIRE you to stand in your front yard, display a flag, salute it and say the pledge or else if it weren’t for free speech.
If those are “fighting words” then you need to seriously grow the Hell up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.