Good news out of Albuquerque today. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has ruled in favor of the Constitution and some anti-war protesters.
The court ruled that the City of Albuquerque, Martin Chavez (our Mayor), and several Albuquerque Police Department officers cannot stand behind the qualified immunity shield when it comes to violating a citizens First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
In March of 2003 anti-war protesters voiced their disapproval of our occupation in Iraq at the University of New Mexico. They were met with resistance from the Albuquerque Police Department in the forms of canisters of tear gas, pepper spray, hand batons and stun guns. Some were arrested for a peaceful demonstration that happened to spill onto some of the streets surrounding UNM.
The local Republican Rag, The Albuquerque Journal had a brief write up about the case...you'll have to do the temporary visitor stuff to read the full text. Further down south the Las Cruces Sun-News had a better article on the 10th Circuit's findings.
From the Sun-News:
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has upheld a lower court's ruling that Albuquerque police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on claims they retaliated against protesters at an anti-war rally.
The case was filed by the local ACLU on behalf of fourteen plaintiffs.
Fourteen plaintiffs - including two minors - accused the Albuquerque police of violating their free speech rights and subjecting them to false imprisonment, wrongful arrest, malicious abuse of process, and excessive use of force. Mayor Martin Chavez of Albuquerque, Department of Public Safety Chief Nick Bakas, Chief of Police Gilbert Gallegos and 12 police officers were named as defendants in the lawsuit.
"We are deeply concerned by the police department's policy of managing peaceful protests with the same techniques that are used to control violent mobs," said Peter Simonson, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Mexico. "These protestors were a threat to no one. They were students, senior citizens, and parents with their children and dogs. Despite their peaceful behavior, the protestors were gassed, beaten with batons, and shot with stun weapons."
Although the court dismissed most of the initial arguments brought by the ACLU it did address the most far reaching portion of their complaints.
A federal district court dismissed most of the plaintiffs' claims against the officers but analyzed their First Amendment claims of retaliation and determined the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim.
Why does this matter? The Court expands:
The court determined there was "no question" that protesting a war is a constitutionally protected activity and the use of tear gas, pepper spray and physical force to disperse plaintiffs and protesters "could have chilled a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to participate in the demonstration."
Yes, we have a right to express ourselves, even when the powers that be don't approve of our expressions. It is easy for law enforcement officers and city officials to claim immunity from charges of First Amendment violations when they've got Qualified Immunity to hide behind.
Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal constitutional law which shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights.
Not this time.
I can only hope that this case will chill some future overzealous reactions to anti-war protesters by those powers that be.
UPDATED - See what happens when you run to the store to get some green chile? Thanks everyone for the recommends!