A few years ago, some Seattle police officers came up with a novel plan to battle DOJ-imposed limits on their use-of-force. Since their union wisely decided to steer clear of this ridiculous legal battle, the officers chose to crowdfund their way into the federal court system. <\/p>\n
Armed with a little over $3,000 and some particularly dubious arguments, the protesting cops filed a lawsuit claiming their Second and Fourth Amendment rights were being violated by the DOJ's use-of-force restrictions. It did not go well. <\/p>\n
The officers' arguments were unsupported by the Constitution or case law, Chief U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said in an opinion issued Monday. <\/p>\n
[...] <\/p>\n
Plaintiffs can point to no case establishing that the Second Amendment codified a free-standing right to self-defense, as opposed to case law interpreting the textual Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms in light of their purposes <\/p>\n
[...] <\/p>\n
Nor did she agree with the officers' insistence that the policy violated a \"right of self-defense as embedded in the Fourth Amendment,\" which protects against unreasonable search and seizures. Pechman said the argument grossly misconstrued Fourth Amendment law. <\/p>\n
The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice by the court. One would think $3,000 only buys a single trip through the federal court system, but apparently appellate-level lawyering is cheaper. The officers immediately appealed the dismissal, and are now finding the Appeals Court isn't any more impressed with the officers' claimed rights violations. <\/p>\n
The Ninth Circuit seemed skeptical of Seattle police officers claims that a new use-of-force policy mandated by the Department of Justice violates their Second Amendment rights. <\/p>\n
U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith told the officers attorney he didnt have much of an argument at a three-judge panel appellate hearing on Monday. <\/p>\n
The officers continue to claim de-escalation policies violate their Second Amendment rights by somehow robbing them of the ability to defend themselves. Not quite \"Obama's coming for my guns,\" but close. How armed officers are being stripped of the right to bear arms -- including using them in defense (but perhaps less frequently) -- is something their lawyer hasn't been able to explain to any court's satisfaction. <\/p>\n
The Fourth Amendment argument is even worse. Even in the plaintiffs' own words, it's spectacularly bad: a \"metaphorical seizure\" of their \"right\" to use whatever force they feel is necessary. <\/p>\n
As the opposing counsel points out in a stunning display of logic, the place to protest new police policies isn't this courthouse. It's the one that approved the DOJ consent decree. <\/p>\n
If the officers had real concerns about the use-of-force policy, they should have brought them before the federal judge overseeing the police reforms rather than asking an appellate panel to create a new fundamental constitutional right, [city attorney Gregory] Narver said. <\/p>\n
The 126 Seattle law enforcement officers involved in this lawsuit have achieved the nigh impossible: making a police union look like the saner party in the wake of a DOJ investigation. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Go here to see the original: A few years ago, some Seattle police officers came up with a novel plan to battle DOJ-imposed limits on their use-of-force. Since their union wisely decided to steer clear of this ridiculous legal battle, the officers chose to crowdfund their way into the federal court system. Armed with a little over $3,000 and some particularly dubious arguments, the protesting cops filed a lawsuit claiming their Second and Fourth Amendment rights were being violated by the DOJ's use-of-force restrictions Continue reading
\nAppeals Court Pretty Sure DOJ Use-Of-Force Guidelines Don't Violate Police Officers' 2nd And 4th Amendment Rights - Techdirt<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"