But they also said police were immune from being suedI haven’t read the case but I am going based on what he is saying and just knowledge of the system.
I believe the court is saying that the plaintiffs can’t sue for a constitutional rights violation in federal court.
They probably can sue in state court for theft just like they can sue a normal person in state court.
the court is saying it’s not a constitutional question.
No, the qualified immunity applies to that lawsuit of a civil rights violationBut they also said police were immune from being sued
Well I think they got screwed by cali and the 9th probably would have had better outcome if this happened in another country !No, the qualified immunity applies to that lawsuit of a civil rights violation
It’s a jurisdiction question. It’s not a constitutional issue and I bet that’s what the city lawyer said.Well I think they got screwed by cali and the 9th probably would have had better outcome if this happened in another country !
That’s a different issue and fact pattern. That was a matter of a policy.I thought SCOTUS just recently limited this bullshit with the range rover case or whatever (where they confiscated the guys SUV) as being Constitutionally impermissible "excessive fines."
If you don't want to sit through the video this is the story
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article235405267.html
The constitution guarantees a jury trial for anything over $20.I thought SCOTUS just recently limited this bullshit with the range rover case or whatever (where they confiscated the guys SUV) as being Constitutionally impermissible "excessive fines."
Please cite the section where it says 20 dollars? I haven’t heard of that before .The constitution guarantees a jury trial for anything over $20.
The states do a blatantly improper end run around this by charging the property not the person they are stealing it from, then declaring that it has no rights because it's just property.
It's disgusting. If the government takes anything worth more than $20 from someone it's supposed to require a jury if they demand it.
Please cite the section where it says 20 dollars? I haven’t heard of that before .
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.[3]
All part of the end run.Having read on the admendment after reading your cite ( thank you by the way), this admendment has not yet been incorporated against the states yet.
And explains why the court doesn’t want to hear the case.
Did you read the part that court can’t change the determination of fact by a jury? Even on appeal. Which means in the anti cop climate , someone can make up a story that the cops took something, get a jury decision on emotion, and later evidence says it’s BS, the jury decision stands. As opposed to suing in state court where the tax payer might have a chance to challenge it.All part of the end run.
Any reasonable interpretation of the law would require either the entire bill of rights to have been incorporated, or none of it.
Just like any reasonable interpretation says that if property can be sued, then it should have all the rights to defense too.
It's nothing new, way back to the founding of the country the declared that some people were property so that they could avoid recognizing their rights (and avoid acknowledging their own crimes infringing those rights).
Eventually history will recognize this behavior for what it is. My main regret is that all the people perpetrating it today are going to get away with it. IMHO every DA who participates in this charade should end up in prison, along with everyone who assists.
But they will get away with it for the same reason that slave owners got away with countless atrocities. There are too many of them and they are too prominent in society.
The jury thing says that a judge can't overturn a jury finding of fact. I stand by that.Did you read the part that court can’t change the determination of fact by a jury? Even on appeal. Which means in the anti cop climate , someone can make up a story that the cops took something, get a jury decision on emotion, and later evidence says it’s BS, the jury decision stands. As opposed to suing in state court where the tax payer might have a chance to challenge it.
and just to show your “slave owner” argument is wrong, the federal government said people were property and free states had to return freed people because the government could not take their “ property “