Latest news with #4thAmendment
Los Angeles Times
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. city leaders look to file lawsuit over ‘unconstitutional' immigration enforcement
Faced with a wave of immigration arrests, the Los Angeles City Council is looking to sue the Trump administration to secure a court order prohibiting federal agents from carrying out any unconstitutional stops or arrests of city residents. Seven council members signed a proposal asking City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to prioritize 'immediate legal action' to protect the civil rights of Angelenos, arguing that such a step is needed to keep their constituents from being racially profiled or unlawfully detained. A lawsuit would almost certainly intensify the tensions between the city's elected officials and the federal government over the ongoing raids, which have been carried out in Hollywood, Pacoima, Cypress Park and many other locations. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who co-authored the proposal, said she and her colleagues have received reports of residents who were stopped, questioned and detained by individuals claiming to be federal immigration agents but did not display an official badge or government identification. Yaroslavsky said she was personally informed about a Latina who was recently walking on Westwood Boulevard and was approached by several men in masks who demanded that she show a valid ID. 'She produced identification and they let her go,' said Yaroslavsky, who represents part of the Westside. '[But] you can't do that under the 4th Amendment. It's not reasonable suspicion that they're noncitizens just because they're brown.' The proposal, which was co-authored by Yaroslavsky and Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, now heads to three council committees for consideration. Asked about the city's efforts, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers act 'with the utmost integrity and professionalism.' She also pushed back on the assertions made by Yaroslavsky and her council colleagues — and chided The Times for reporting on their claims. 'Attacks against ICE officers have increased 500% because of this unhinged, extremist rhetoric from Democrat politicians — that the LA Times is apparently happy to amplify,' Jackson said. 'The LA Times should do some real reporting, instead of just regurgitating Democrat propaganda.' The city's preparations for legal action represent the latest in a series of confrontations between the Trump administration and the city of Los Angeles. On Friday, during an appearance in Los Angeles, Vice President JD Vance ripped into Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, accusing them of endangering the lives of federal law enforcement officers by speaking out against the immigration sweeps. 'What happened here was a tragedy,' Vance said. 'You had people who were doing the simple job of enforcing the law, and you had rioters, egged on by the governor and the mayor, making it harder for them to do their job.' Bass shot back hours later, saying Vance was 'spewing lies and utter nonsense' and attempting to justify the waste of taxpayer dollars on the deployment of the National Guard and the U.S. Marines to Southern California. L.A. neighborhoods are indeed experiencing fear and terror, but the kind caused by men in masks carrying guns and rifles who are pulling people off the street, she said. 'They refuse to give ID. They're driving regular cars with tinted windows and in some cases out-of-state license plates,' she said. 'Who are these people ... are they bounty hunters? Are they vigilantes? If they're federal officials, why is it that they do not identify themselves?' A decision by the city to go to court would offer only the latest example of California elected officials taking on the Trump administration. Newsom is locked in a legal battle with the federal government over the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has filed more than a dozen other federal cases dealing with tariffs, federal employee layoffs, LGBTQ+ rights and other topics. On Friday, the council voted 9-1 to provide Feldstein Soto up to $250,000 to bring on an outside legal team to respond to any actions taken by the federal government over the next month, when the council is on its summer recess. Yaroslavsky said that council action is not connected to her proposal, which could receive a vote from the full council by the end of next week. The city's potential legal filing could be modeled after a federal lawsuit filed by United Farm Workers in the state's Central Valley earlier this year, Yaroslavsky said. In that case, United Farm Workers alleged that border patrol agents stopped, detained and arrested dozens of people of color who appeared to be farm workers or day laborers, 'regardless of their actual immigration status or individual circumstances.' ' 'Operation Return to Sender' tore families apart and terrorized the community,' the lawsuit states. 'It also violated the law. The Fourth Amendment prohibits Border Patrol agents from detaining a person, whether in a private vehicle or on foot, without reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country unlawfully.' In April, a federal judge ordered federal authorities to halt illegal stops and warrantless arrests in the Central Valley. In an 88-page order, U.S. Dist. Judge Jennifer Thurston said the evidence presented so far by the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawyers represent the farm workers, showed that Border Patrol agents had engaged in a 'pattern and practice' of detaining people without reasonable suspicion and executing warrantless arrests without determining flight risk. 'The evidence before the Court is that Border Patrol agents under DHS authority engaged in conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights,' Thurston wrote. Lawyers for the federal government said the allegations cited by the plaintiff were 'disparate examples' and did not constitute systemic behavior. They also argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to take up the case, which was filed as a class action lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and officials with U.S. Border Patrol. Yaroslavsky said she wants the city to seek the same type of order that was issued by Thurston in the Central Valley. The city, she said, needs to help residents who may be too frightened of retaliation by federal law enforcement to file a challenge directly. 'Even if they're here legally, they're afraid,' she said. 'Because the Trump administration has shown it's willing to detain and deport people who are here legally. So if ever there were an instance where it made sense for local government to step in on behalf of our people, now is the time.'
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Marines tasked with LA mission have not yet completed use of force and nonlethal training
The roughly 700 Marines recently ordered to deploy to Los Angeles have not yet completed training on less-than-lethal weapons and training on the Standing Rules for Use of Force, which governs the use of force for military personnel within the United States, said a spokesperson for U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM. It is not yet clear when the Marines will complete the training, or when they will join NORTHCOM's Task Force 51, which is overseeing U.S. troops responding to the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles, the spokesperson said. When U.S. troops operate domestically, they are bound by the Standing Rules for the Use of Force — which are more restrictive than wartime rules of engagement — and they must follow the same law and rules under the 4th Amendment as police, said retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former military attorney. NORTHCOM announced on Sunday that the Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines based at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, had been told to be ready to deploy to Los Angeles to supplement National Guardsmen responding to immigration protests there. The Marines began receiving Standing Rules for Use of Force training from an operational law attorney with I Marine Expeditionary Force before deploying to Los Angeles, a Marine Corps official told Task & Purpose. Since the immigration protests began on June 7, President Donald Trump has federalized about 4,000 members of the National Guard to protect federal personnel and buildings. The Marines were ordered to deploy to Los Angeles on Monday. Typically, states activate their National Guard troops to conduct disaster relief or law enforcement missions when their governors deem it necessary, VanLandingham told Task & Purpose for a previous story. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits federal U.S. troops from enforcing U.S. laws on American soil unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, and he has only directed the federalized National Guard troops to protect federal personnel and buildings, VanLandingham said. Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot, head of NORTHCOM, recently told the Los Angeles Times that the Marines do not have the authority to arrest people. 'They are not law enforcement officers, and they do not have the authority to make arrests,' Guillot told the newspaper. 'There are very unique situations where they could detain someone if detaining was necessary to defend, but they could only detain that person long enough to hand it off to a proper law enforcement official.' A Marine Corps reply-all email apocalypse has an incredible real-life ending Army shuts down its sole active-duty information operations command Army plans to close more than 20 base museums in major reduction Former Green Beret nominated to top Pentagon position to oversee special ops The Navy's new recruiting commercial puts the 'dirt wars' in the past
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
9th Circuit deals blow to qualified immunity, revives lawsuit against LAPD officer
A federal appeals court has reversed a ruling that shielded a Los Angeles police officer from liability in a fatal shooting, a decision that experts say could have broad implications for future cases in which law enforcement officials attempt to claim protection from civil lawsuits under the doctrine known as qualified immunity. The ruling Monday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest twist in a lawsuit against LAPD officer Toni McBride over an on-duty shooting that occurred in April 2020. McBride, who was granted medical retirement from the police department late last year, killed Daniel Hernandez after he was in a car accident in South L.A. The shooting occurred as Hernandez, 38, walked toward McBride and her police partner while holding a box cutter, ignoring commands to drop the blade. Video footage showed McBride fire three two-bullet volleys over six seconds. The final two shots were fired while Hernandez was rolling on the ground, which attorneys for the Hernandez family argued in a lawsuit was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Read more: Reversal clears LAPD officer faulted for firing two extra bullets in fatal 2020 shooting The shooting was ultimately found to be "in policy" under the police department's standards. Last March, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit ruled that even though a jury could have reasonably found McBride used excessive force, she could not be sued in federal court due to qualified immunity, a controversial legal principle that protects officers from liability over some on-duty actions. The Hernandez family challenged the decision, leading to the reversal Monday on a 6-5 vote by the larger en banc panel of the appellate court. The judges cited a 2017 case in Orange County as precedent, writing that 'continuing to shoot a suspect who appears to be incapacitated and no longer poses an immediate threat violates the Fourth Amendment.' The case will now go to trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Narine Mkrtchyan, a lawyer for Hernandez's 18-year-old daughter, Melanie Hernandez, said the decision meant "justice has been served." "Not just for this family but also for the future of shooting cases,' Mkrtchyan said. 'Officers cannot keep shooting when someone is down on the ground, period.' McBride's father, Jamie McBride, is one of nine directors of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file LAPD officers. He said Monday afternoon that his daughter did not have a statement on the latest development. 'In the end, when it goes to the Supreme Court or state court, I think that common sense will prevail and I think they'll agree that she acted in self-defense and she was totally justified in the force that she used," the elder McBride said. "She made the community safer by taking care of the threat that was coming at her. A spokesperson for the LAPD did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday afternoon. While the shooting case has slowly made its way through the courts, a separate case centered on McBride's social media activity has also generated controversy. With more than 100,000 followers on Instagram, McBride built an audience by sharing pro-gun videos and content and highlighting her position and experience as an LAPD officer. McBride alleged in a civil lawsuit that her free speech rights were violated and she was subjected to gender discrimination when she was retaliated against for her social media postings. Read more: LAPD officer who moonlights as gun influencer loses lawsuit over social media accounts McBride's online success made her into a 'gun influencer' who earned money for sponsored social media posts that showed her shooting firearms at training ranges and competitions, Aneta Freeman, an assistant L.A. city attorney, alleged last year during the civil trial over her online activity. McBride received free items, Freeman said, including a ballistic vest, ammo and hair extensions. She sought $100,000 damages, claiming that she suffered 'emotional distress' as a result of the workplace dispute over her social media. McBride dropped the gender discrimination claims, and in April 2024, she lost her free speech lawsuit when a jury ruled that she had not been treated unfairly. McBride's attorney, Greg Smith, said Tuesday that while she lost on the free speech claim, she preserved her right to refile a retaliation action alleging that she was discriminated against because of her gender. Whether she will refile remains to be seen. 'That's completely up in the air right now; there's no lawsuit right now,' Smith said. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Five years after George Floyd's death, calls to reform qualified immunity mostly fall silent
WASHINGTON — The death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer in May 2020 gave momentum to a cross-ideological effort to reform the legal defense known as "qualified immunity," which can protect cops even when they have violated the Constitution. Bills were introduced in Congress calling to abolish the defense. Multiple cases piled up at the Supreme Court urging the justices to intervene. Much ink was spilled. And then, nothing happened. With the fifth anniversary of Floyd's death approaching this weekend, Congress still has not passed any legislation seeking to even reform, let alone abolish, qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has rejected dozens of cases asking it to do the same. What minor changes have occurred, via court rulings or state legislative actions, have had little practical impact on a nationwide basis. For Karen Blum, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston and a long-term critic of qualified immunity, the situation is nothing short of depressing. "After George Floyd, it was the first time I was actually optimistic and very positive that something would be done, no matter how little," she said. "But nothing, I mean nothing, has happened." The doctrine, first adopted by the Supreme Court in 1967, gives government officials the benefit of the doubt when they violate the Constitution. When a plaintiff files a federal civil rights claim, the defendant — including police officers facing excessive force claims under the Constitution's 4th Amendment — can get off the hook by arguing that it was not "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation that its actions were unconstitutional. If qualified immunity is granted, the lawsuit is dismissed and the plaintiffs never get a chance to either negotiate a settlement or go to trial. In 2020, a Reuters investigation found that judges were increasingly granting qualified immunity at the direction of the Supreme Court. The law enforcement community strongly defends the concept, saying it is needed to give officers acting in good faith the confidence to make split-second decisions, often in extremely dangerous circumstances. The Fraternal Order of Police, a national group representing law enforcement officers, did not respond to requests for comment. Floyd's killing by Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis police officer, triggered an immediate national debate over police violence, especially against Black men. But there had already been a quiet cross-ideological effort before then to reform qualified immunity, backed by such strange bedfellows as the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute. They had filed briefs at the Supreme Court hoping to persuade the justices to take a new look at the doctrine and consider amending it — or maybe ditching it altogether. For a few weeks in the summer of 2020, as racial justice protests raged, both the Supreme Court and Congress considered whether to take action. The court quickly sidestepped the issue, declining in June 2020 to hear a series of cases asking for reconsideration of qualified immunity. Ten days later, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, including a number of police reform measures on qualified immunity and other issues. But it ran into headwinds in the Republican-controlled Senate and lost momentum. "Republican intransigence was the real explanation there, and I don't see any reason to think that has changed for the better," said Clark Neily, a lawyer at the Cato Institute. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., who was a co-sponsor of the George Floyd legislation, said that there were plans to reintroduce it during the current Congress but that he has "no confidence" it would get any traction with Republicans controlling both chambers. "We will get to a time in this country where we will pass that legislation," he said. In the meantime, courts have continued to grant cops and other government officials qualified immunity in cases involving shocking claims: Police officers assisting a paramedic in Fresno, California, held a man in a prone position until he died, even after he told them he could not breathe. Police officers in Pineville, North Carolina, fired multiple shots at a man who was complying with their orders to drop a firearm. Prison officers at a facility in Columbia, South Carolina, failed to intervene when two men murdered four of their fellow inmates. However, there have been small signs of incremental change. Some judges have criticized the way qualified immunity has been applied, joining a handful who had done the same before 2020. That approach has seeped into some recent rulings, those following the case law say. Chris Balch, a lawyer in Georgia who represents police departments in such cases, said the thumb on the scale in favor of officers "has lessened in the last five years," meaning defense lawyers need to be ready to go to trial. He cited a January 2024 ruling by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that denied qualified immunity to a jail intake officer after a Black inmate who had disclosed he stabbed a white man for racially motivated reasons then murdered his white cellmate. There was also a glimmer of hope for reform advocates at the Supreme Court, which in November 2020 ruled in favor of a Texas prison inmate who had been held in filthy conditions. The justices overturned a lower court that said qualified immunity protected prison officials. After reform efforts failed in Congress, there was briefly a concerted effort to enact state-level legislation that would create an alternative way to sue officers under those states' laws, making qualified immunity unavailable as a defense. Although a handful of states enacted such laws, the campaign met with considerable resistance elsewhere. More recently, President Donald Trump's re-election has in some ways sent the pendulum swinging in the other direction in the national political arena. When Trump signed a pro-law enforcement executive order last month, he stressed the importance of ensuring officers are not held legally accountable for their actions. The order says the Trump administration will take action to 'provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities' and calls on officials to 'strengthen and expand legal protections' for officers. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said Trump's policing plan shows he is "fulfilling his campaign promise to Make America Safe Again." The administration is committed to reversing "failed policies" backed by Democrats, he added. With that political environment in mind, Blum, the qualified immunity critic, remains pessimistic there will be any major change any time soon. "Qualified immunity is here to stay," she said. This article was originally published on
NBC News
20-05-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Five years after George Floyd's death, calls to reform qualified immunity mostly fall silent
WASHINGTON — The death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer in May 2020 gave momentum to a cross-ideological effort to reform the legal defense known as "qualified immunity," which can protect cops even when they have violated the Constitution. Bills were introduced in Congress calling to abolish the defense. Multiple cases piled up at the Supreme Court urging the justices to intervene. Much ink was spilled. And then, nothing happened. With the fifth anniversary of Floyd's death approaching this weekend, Congress still has not passed any legislation seeking to even reform, let alone abolish, qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has rejected dozens of cases asking it to do the same. What minor changes have occurred, via court rulings or state legislative actions, have had little practical impact on a nationwide basis. For Karen Blum, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston and a long-term critic of qualified immunity, the situation is nothing short of depressing. "After George Floyd, it was the first time I was actually optimistic and very positive that something would be done, no matter how little," she said. "But nothing, I mean nothing, has happened." The doctrine, first adopted by the Supreme Court in 1967, gives government officials the benefit of the doubt when they violate the Constitution. When a plaintiff files a federal civil rights claim, the defendant — including police officers facing excessive force claims under the Constitution's 4th Amendment — can get off the hook by arguing that it was not "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation that its actions were unconstitutional. If qualified immunity is granted, the lawsuit is dismissed and the plaintiffs never get a chance to either negotiate a settlement or go to trial. In 2020, a Reuters investigation found that judges were increasingly granting qualified immunity at the direction of the Supreme Court. The law enforcement community strongly defends the concept, saying it is needed to give officers acting in good faith the confidence to make split-second decisions, often in extremely dangerous circumstances. The Fraternal Order of Police, a national group representing law enforcement officers, did not respond to requests for comment. Egregious cases Floyd's killing by Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis police officer, triggered an immediate national debate over police violence, especially against Black men. But there had already been a quiet cross-ideological effort before then to reform qualified immunity, backed by such strange bedfellows as the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute. They had filed briefs at the Supreme Court hoping to persuade the justices to take a new look at the doctrine and consider amending it — or maybe ditching it altogether. For a few weeks in the summer of 2020, as racial justice protests raged, both the Supreme Court and Congress considered whether to take action. The court quickly sidestepped the issue, declining in June 2020 to hear a series of cases asking for reconsideration of qualified immunity. Ten days later, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, including a number of police reform measures on qualified immunity and other issues. But it ran into headwinds in the Republican-controlled Senate and lost momentum. "Republican intransigence was the real explanation there, and I don't see any reason to think that has changed for the better," said Clark Neily, a lawyer at the Cato Institute. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., who was a co-sponsor of the George Floyd legislation, said that there were plans to reintroduce it during the current Congress but that he has "no confidence" it would get any traction with Republicans controlling both chambers. "We will get to a time in this country where we will pass that legislation," he said. In the meantime, courts have continued to grant cops and other government officials qualified immunity in cases involving shocking claims: Police officers assisting a paramedic in Fresno, California, held a man in a prone position until he died, even after he told them he could not breathe. Police officers in Pineville, North Carolina, fired multiple shots at a man who was complying with their orders to drop a firearm. Prison officers at a facility in Columbia, South Carolina, failed to intervene when two men murdered four of their fellow inmates. However, there have been small signs of incremental change. Some judges have criticized the way qualified immunity has been applied, joining a handful who had done the same before 2020. That approach has seeped into some recent rulings, those following the case law say. Chris Balch, a lawyer in Georgia who represents police departments in such cases, said the thumb on the scale in favor of officers "has lessened in the last five years," meaning defense lawyers need to be ready to go to trial. He cited a January 2024 ruling by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that denied qualified immunity to a jail intake officer after a Black inmate who had disclosed he stabbed a white man for racially motivated reasons then murdered his white cellmate. There was also a glimmer of hope for reform advocates at the Supreme Court, which in November 2020 ruled in favor of a Texas prison inmate who had been held in filthy conditions. The justices overturned a lower court that said qualified immunity protected prison officials. After reform efforts failed in Congress, there was briefly a concerted effort to enact state-level legislation that would create an alternative way to sue officers under those states' laws, making qualified immunity unavailable as a defense. Although a handful of states enacted such laws, the campaign met with considerable resistance elsewhere. More recently, President Donald Trump's re-election has in some ways sent the pendulum swinging in the other direction in the national political arena. When Trump signed a pro-law enforcement executive order last month, he stressed the importance of ensuring officers are not held legally accountable for their actions. The order says the Trump administration will take action to 'provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities' and calls on officials to 'strengthen and expand legal protections' for officers. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said Trump's policing plan shows he is "fulfilling his campaign promise to Make America Safe Again." The administration is committed to reversing "failed policies" backed by Democrats, he added. With that political environment in mind, Blum, the qualified immunity critic, remains pessimistic there will be any major change any time soon. "Qualified immunity is here to stay," she said.
