The Supreme Court let stand a $4-million verdict against two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who were searching for a fugitive and mistakenly shot an innocent homeless couple sleeping in a shed behind a Lancaster home.
The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a $4-million verdict against two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who were searching for a fugitive and mistakenly shot an innocent homeless couple sleeping in a shed behind a Lancaster home.
They sued the deputies who shot them in 2010 and alleged violations of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and excessive use of force. The decision was a rejection of the so-called provocation rule that some lower courts, including the 9th Circuit, had used. Under that theory, police could be sued for violating a victim's constitutional rights if they provoked a confrontation that resulted in violence.last year and said the deputies were liable for having entered the private property without a search warrant and for having burst into the shed without announcing their presence.
“Among the reasons why the 4th Amendment erects a barrier to entry is that an officer might, due to a mistaken assessment of the threat, harm a person inside a residence,” he wrote last year. “Persons residing in a home may innocently hold kitchen knives, cellphones, toy guns or even real ones that could be mistakenly believed by the police to pose a threat…. Nothing about Mr.
Brasil Últimas Notícias, Brasil Manchetes
Similar News:Você também pode ler notícias semelhantes a esta que coletamos de outras fontes de notícias.
Sotomayor tells kids it's 'awesome' to be first Latina Supreme Court justiceSupreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor answered questions from children during an event at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
Consulte Mais informação »
Perspective | A century of rulings: How the Supreme Court has remade free speechSince 1919, the Court has been reinterpreting, and limiting, the First Amendment.
Consulte Mais informação »
California Supreme Court curbs a pension benefit but preserves ‘California Rule’For more than 60 years, California has adhered to the so-called 'California Rule,' which guarantees workers the pensions that were in place the day they were hired. This has stymied state and local lawmakers now wrestling with hundreds of billions of dollars in pension shortfall.
Consulte Mais informação »
California Supreme Court to decide whether government can cut pensionsFor more than 60 years, California has adhered to the so-called 'California Rule,' which guarantees workers the pensions that were in place the day they were hired. This has stymied state and local lawmakers now wrestling with hundreds of billions of dollars in pension shortfall.
Consulte Mais informação »
Supreme Court won't take New Jersey church caseThree of the court's conservatives said the broader issue of whether states could deny historic preservation funds to churches must be addressed in some future case.
Consulte Mais informação »
Supreme Court punts on taxpayer funding for historic preservation of churchesThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a New Jersey case in which churches have been barred from receiving tax dollars meant for historic preservation.
Consulte Mais informação »
Supreme Court likely to shut down Trump's national emergency declaration, Rand Paul predicts'In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this,' the Republican senator said.
Consulte Mais informação »
Supreme Court seems to seek narrow way to uphold cross that memorializes war deadIs the Bladensburg Peace Cross unconstitutional or a secular honor to World War I heroes?
Consulte Mais informação »
U.S. Supreme Court revives India power plant lawsuitThe U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday revived a lawsuit by villagers in India seek...
Consulte Mais informação »
Opinion | A Supreme Court Cross-RoadsOpinion: The Bladensburg cross case in the Supreme Court tees up the Lemon test for overturning
Consulte Mais informação »