As far as federal police go, a simple act of congress could solve most of our problems.
Start with the disarming of non-police agencies in the USG. Then consolidate the 70+ agencies into about half a dozen.
“You used to be an armed officer of the Department of Education? Now you work for the FBI, and are *attached* to Education. Your boss is in the FBI, and you answer to him. If Education needs you, they ask your boss.”
Most of Homeland Security is either busted up or put into ICE and the Border Patrol.
Airport security will be handled by the airports, and by act of congress, they may use profiling as part of their security operations, and be immune from lawsuits for doing so.
Or you could learn the law and your constitutional rights.
Start here:
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