Thread by @gabrielmalor

3d Cir., 2-1, no QI for police officer who slammed an unarmed eighteen year-old into a wall and then the ground when he argued back over being stopped on suspicion of underage purchase of tobacco. www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/18285…

Couple things here. First, as noted in the above pic, the dashcam video was so important to this outcome because it established the facts beyond doubt. And still it wasn't enough for the dissenting judge.

Second, once again we have a police-public interaction that should never have happened in the first place. Here's the timeline of the twenty-minute event:

(1) Officer is surveilling store.
(2) The young men decline to talk to her. This mere decision not to talk with her *heightens her suspicion enough* that she sits them down on the sidewalk and makes them turn out thier pockets.
(3) No contraband discovered.

(4) Now, though, her blood is up, and one of the young men doesn't have his ID, but he does have tobacco. Huzzah for the officer, now she can say she's worried about underage purchase of tobacco.

(5) She throws down his ID and steps on it to prevent his brother form picking it up. WTF?
(6) Things are getting heated. One brother is arguing with the newly-arrived backup that this is harassment. (He's right.)
(7) Two steps forward, and he's slammed to the wall and pavement.

NONE OF THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

You're imagining it. The fact is that more people are covering qualified immunity cases than used to.

Dissenting Judge Phipps argues that the relevant right here not to be taken to the ground during an investigative stop was not clearly established bc there hasn't been a sufficiently analogous case.

He also would define the right with more specificity:

Hmm, yes, I am rather having a hard time finding a "shoved backward into a vertical structure while not losing his footing" case . . .

It sure does.