U.S. top court sides with police over shooting of homeless couple

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with police on Tuesday and threw out a lower court ruling that had upheld $4 million in damages awarded to a homeless couple who sued after being shot 15 times in a backyard shack by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies who were searching for another man.

The justices ruled 8-0 in favor of the deputies, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, and the county, nixing an earlier decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court had ruled in favor of the couple, Angel and Jennifer Mendez, who resided in the wooden shack and sustained serious injuries in the 2010 incident.

The high court's ruling means that the 9th Circuit must review the case for a second time to determine whether the couple can recover damages because of the officers' failure to obtain a search warrant.

The case was decided by the justices at a time of heightened concern over use of excessive force by U.S. police after a series of high-profile fatal shootings in recent years.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-police-idUSKBN18Q1SX

---

SUPREME COURT | Tue May 30, 2017 | 11:10am EDT
By Lawrence Hurley | WASHINGTON

[winstars]

1. HOMELESS COUPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS?

"The incident took place in Lancaster, a city within Los Angeles County, after 12 officers responded to a call that a wanted parolee named Ronnie O'Dell had been spotted in the area. Deputies decided to search a shack at the rear of a house and conducted a warrantless raid. The two deputies opened the door to the shack unannounced, saw Angel Mendez holding what they thought was a rifle and shot 15 times.

Angel Mendez was in fact holding a BB gun that he used to kill rodents. His right leg was amputated below the knee as a result of the shooting. Jennifer Mendez, pregnant at the time, was shot in the back."

[brooklynite]

7. How is the fact that the couple was homeless in any way relevant to the story?

[winstars]

8. Ask the idiot cops, not me fellow Brooklynite. I am sure if they were white, no 12 shots fired...

[Scalded Nun]

2. Further solidifying the entrenchment of the police state in this country. eom

[DK504]

3. WTH???????

So entering a domicle with no warrent, no probable cause and no attempt to diffuse the situation, they open up and nealy emptied their clips.

The cops envolved are completely guilty of manslaughter, did they say drop the gun? Or did they just pull trigger and nearly killed by idiot thugs. LAPD is out of control and they don't care. After living there for 15 years we never for one second trusted any of them. Everyone felt that way.

[melm00se]

4. when you see a unanimous decision

overturning a lower court ruling that indicates that the lower court really screwed the pooch in their decision.

[LanternWaste]

5. That's certainly a creative allegation.

That's certainly a creative allegation.

[melm00se]

6. How so?

the Supreme Court held that the 9th Circuit's utilization of the 4th Amendment as their basis for their "provocation rule" is incompatible with the Supreme Court's excessive force rulings (see page 2 of the Supreme Court's ruling).

Additionally, the Court points out that there is no need to distort the excessive force inquiry in order to hold law enforcement liable for foreseeable consequences for their constitutional violations.

Contrary to what some of the posters here have stated, this did not strip homeless people of their rights, what the Court actually did, in essence, say to the 9th Circuit Court was go back and revisit "whether proximate cause permits respondents to recover damages for their injuries based on the deputies’ failure to secure a warrant at the outset". In other words, your application of existing/settle law is flawed.

Courts do not have the ability to make law but rather apply the existing law (and their constitutional framework) to cases. In this situation, the 9th Circuit (incorrectly) applied the law contrary to existing precedent.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. 'in their decision,' being the operative phrase. (eom)