Friday, January 4, 2013

Tenth Circuit Lynch v. Barrett 12-1222

Decision here.

   Lynch punched some guy at a downtown nightclub, and then ran away from the police.  Half a dozen officers chased him, and he was found hiding in a bush.  According to Lynch, he realized at this point that he was caught, so he stood up to surrender but found himself thrown on the ground and being struck in the back of his leg with a flashlight.  He couldn't see who was hitting him because he was face down on the ground.

   Lynch sued the officers for excessive force, but lost the lawsuit because he wasn't able to establish that the officers he sued were responsible for the use of force against him.

   Then Lynch sued Barrett et al, (there are four cops and the City & County of Denver named as defendants in this lawsuit).  Essentially, he sued them for denying him access to legal redress by refusing to name the officer(s) who struck him with a flashlight.  He alleges that the officers were in a position to see who arrested him and used for against him, but covered it up behind a code of silence.  In support of his claim, the officers did testify to seeing the defendant get taken down, or to running up to assist in the arrest, or to otherwise being in the area at the time.  The city was named in the lawsuit because Lynch claims that it adopted policies and practices which encourage officers to cover up for each other.

   The officers and the city filed for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

   The Tenth Circuit held that if Lynch's version of these events is true then the officers did, in fact, violate his constitutional rights by covering for their fellow officers.  Specifically, the court identified Lynch's First Amendment right to petition the government (which is to say the court) for redress, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.  Article 4 of the Constitution is also mentioned... but the officers are entitled to qualified immunity anyway.

   Here's why: in order to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff has to show evidence that an officer violated his Constitutional rights and also that the right was clearly established at the time.  "Clearly established" means that there is some on-point case law which outlines the contours of the right.  Simply saying "it's in the Constitution" isn't enough, there has to be some case law explaining how the Constitution applies to similar circumstances.

   In this case, the Court held that (assuming the plaintiff's version of the story is correct), then the officers did violate his rights.  However, as morally reprehensible as their actions may have been, until now there was no Tenth Circuit case law explaining that a code of silence violates a Constitutional right.  It's obviously wrong, and any officer should know that, but might not have known that it was also a violation of the Constitution.

   This case closes that loophole, though.  These officers are entitled to qualified immunity; the next ones to do the same thing won't be.  And Lynch's lawsuit against the city (as opposed to the officers) can still proceed.

No comments:

Post a Comment