Thread by @CBHessick

Last night I appeared on a local news station with @ProfKamiChavis and others to talk about the Derek Chauvin verdict

One of the other guests, a former sheriff, said that a lot of problems could be avoided if only people would submit to police during arrest

I think that's wrong

The sheriff insisted that, if you think the police are mistakenly arresting you or otherwise doing things they shouldn't, members of the public should simply submit and deal with the officer's actions later, in court.

I guess the sheriff doesn't know about qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity will shield many (most?) officers who illegally arrest or search people from any sort of civil liability. The law as it currently stands literally allows police to "get away with it" when they violate people's rights.

In addition, if people agree to let police detain them or agree to let police search them, their car, or their homes, then judges will say that those people have waived their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Submit = Give up your rights

It's possible that, from a policy perspective, the best approach is to have people submit to police authority and then to sort out problems afterwards in court.

But the legal regime we have right now doesn't allow for the mistakes/misconduct to be corrected in court.

Unless that law changes--unless we get rid of qualified immunity or do away with the consent doctrine under the Fourth Amendment--the idea that the public should submit to police is indistinguishable from saying police should be free to violate the rights of the public.