Empathy List Archives

disasterrelief@lists.imla.org

News of the DAy - Mandates against mandates - Jails - I'm too old

Chuck Thompson

Tue, Jan 25, 2022 5:47 PM

11th Circuit - Prisoner Suits - Sheriffs -Jails- Three Strikes - Exhaustion

A panel reversed dismissal of two suits by two inmates of the Baker County Detention Center. Apparently one of the plaintiffs since being incarcerated has found litigation to be a form of recreation and brings many actions against the terms of his incarceration. In this matter both plaintiffs filed in state court and were accorded in pauperis status. The defendants removed the cases to federal court and sought dismissal as to one plaintiff, the recreational litigator, under the three strikes law and against the other for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court reversed on three strike by reading the law to apply to suits brought in federal court by the plaintiff where as here it was brought in state court and removed by the defendants. As to the exhaustion claim, the panel felt the lower court had not fairly considered the plaintiff's allegations before ruling against him on the basis of the defendants' defense.

Maldonado vs Baker County Sheriff's Office https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012605.pdf

Arguable Probable Cause
I had some really helpful responses to my question about "arguable probable cause". Apparently, the term is used in some circuits but not others. One great response was from a lawyer who really admire in Vancouver, Washington, Dan Lloyd who wrote: "Arguable probable cause" is germane only in the qualified immunity context. Essentially what it means (if properly applied) is that unless every reasonable officer would agree probable cause was lacking, probable cause is "arguable" and therefore the constitutional question is not "beyond debate," which means the individual gets qualified immunity. So in other words, it's another way of stating the constitutional question is not "beyond debate"." Terrific explanation.

I guess I'm just too old (maybe I'm arguably middle aged), but I learned the constitution protected against searches and seizures that were not based upon probable cause. If it helps provide qualified immunity to say that an officer thought there was probable cause and a lot of other folks would have thought so too, but now in the resplendent courtroom after hearing a bunch of arguments the court doesn't think so, but can forgive the mistake - well, maybe that makes some sense. From my perspective however I think it would be better for courts to frame the question as to whether there was or was not probable cause and if not, did the officers nevertheless act in good faith. I guess one can ask if there is per se arguable probable cause if a magistrate issues a warrant based on the stated probable cause? I always used to believe that when I prosecuted, I could prosecute someone if their was sufficient evidence to believe a crime had been committed and the defendant had committed it. Sometimes, I lost, but the result didn't change the how the case was viewed in advance of the trial.

Anyway, thanks to Dan and others who responded and let's hope the courts continue to find ways to recognize that officers don't have to be correct, they just need probable cause - arguable or actual - to search or arrest.

Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
Of Counsel
P: (202) 466-5424 x7110
M: (240) 876-6790
D: (202) 742-1016
[facebook icon]https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/[twitter icon]https://twitter.com/imlalegal[linkedin icon]https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./

[logo]https://imla.org/
51 Monroe St. Suite 404
Rockville, MD, 20850
www.imla.org http://www.imla.org/
Plan Ahead!
IMLA's 2022 Mid-Year Seminarhttps://imla.org/seminars/, April 8-11, 2022 in Washington, D.C.!
IMLA's 2022 Annualhttps://imla.org/annual-conference/ Conference, October 19-23, 2022 in Portland, OR!

Check out our On-Demand webinar libraryhttps://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=imla&webcode=shopping&cart=0&shopsearchCat=Merchandise&productCat=Webinar with 100+ webinars at your fingertips.

8th Circuit - ADA - No Mask Requirement Mandates - A Disability rights group filed suit against Iowa's mandate that prohibited mask mandates. Their suit was on behalf of school children at risk who believed that the prohibition affected their rights under the ADA. A panel in a 2-1 decision of the court concluded that a mandate against mandates violated the plaintiffs' rights. The majority concluded that mask requirements are reasonable accommodations under the ADA and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act required to protect the rights of plaintiffs' children, thus prohibiting reasonable accommodations violated the federal laws. The Arc of Iowa v. Kimberly Reynolds https://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/todays-opinions 11th Circuit - Prisoner Suits - Sheriffs -Jails- Three Strikes - Exhaustion A panel reversed dismissal of two suits by two inmates of the Baker County Detention Center. Apparently one of the plaintiffs since being incarcerated has found litigation to be a form of recreation and brings many actions against the terms of his incarceration. In this matter both plaintiffs filed in state court and were accorded in pauperis status. The defendants removed the cases to federal court and sought dismissal as to one plaintiff, the recreational litigator, under the three strikes law and against the other for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court reversed on three strike by reading the law to apply to suits brought in federal court by the plaintiff where as here it was brought in state court and removed by the defendants. As to the exhaustion claim, the panel felt the lower court had not fairly considered the plaintiff's allegations before ruling against him on the basis of the defendants' defense. Maldonado vs Baker County Sheriff's Office https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012605.pdf Arguable Probable Cause I had some really helpful responses to my question about "arguable probable cause". Apparently, the term is used in some circuits but not others. One great response was from a lawyer who really admire in Vancouver, Washington, Dan Lloyd who wrote: "Arguable probable cause" is germane only in the qualified immunity context. Essentially what it means (if properly applied) is that unless every reasonable officer would agree probable cause was lacking, probable cause is "arguable" and therefore the constitutional question is not "beyond debate," which means the individual gets qualified immunity. So in other words, it's another way of stating the constitutional question is not "beyond debate"." Terrific explanation. I guess I'm just too old (maybe I'm arguably middle aged), but I learned the constitution protected against searches and seizures that were not based upon probable cause. If it helps provide qualified immunity to say that an officer thought there was probable cause and a lot of other folks would have thought so too, but now in the resplendent courtroom after hearing a bunch of arguments the court doesn't think so, but can forgive the mistake - well, maybe that makes some sense. From my perspective however I think it would be better for courts to frame the question as to whether there was or was not probable cause and if not, did the officers nevertheless act in good faith. I guess one can ask if there is per se arguable probable cause if a magistrate issues a warrant based on the stated probable cause? I always used to believe that when I prosecuted, I could prosecute someone if their was sufficient evidence to believe a crime had been committed and the defendant had committed it. Sometimes, I lost, but the result didn't change the how the case was viewed in advance of the trial. Anyway, thanks to Dan and others who responded and let's hope the courts continue to find ways to recognize that officers don't have to be correct, they just need probable cause - arguable or actual - to search or arrest. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! IMLA's 2022 Mid-Year Seminar<https://imla.org/seminars/>, April 8-11, 2022 in Washington, D.C.! IMLA's 2022 Annual<https://imla.org/annual-conference/> Conference, October 19-23, 2022 in Portland, OR! Check out our On-Demand webinar library<https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=imla&webcode=shopping&cart=0&shopsearchCat=Merchandise&productCat=Webinar> with 100+ webinars at your fingertips.

Brett Kriger

Tue, Jan 25, 2022 5:52 PM

"I told you so"
- George Orwell -

Get Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/ghei36

From: Chuck Thompson cthompson@imla.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 11:47:00 AM
To: disasterrelief@lists.imla.org disasterrelief@lists.imla.org; 'policeadvisors@lists.imla.org' (policeadvisors@lists.imla.org) policeadvisors@lists.imla.org; Federal Law List Serve federal@lists.imla.org; counties@lists.imla.org counties@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Disasterrelief] News of the DAy - Mandates against mandates - Jails - I'm too old

8th Circuit – ADA – No Mask Requirement Mandates –

A Disability rights group filed suit against Iowa’s mandate that prohibited mask mandates. Their suit was on behalf of school children at risk who believed that the prohibition affected their rights under the ADA. A panel in a 2-1 decision of the court concluded that a mandate against mandates violated the plaintiffs’ rights. The majority concluded that mask requirements are reasonable accommodations under the ADA and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act required to protect the rights of plaintiffs' children, thus prohibiting reasonable accommodations violated the federal laws.

The Arc of Iowa v. Kimberly Reynolds https://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/todays-opinions

11th Circuit – Prisoner Suits – Sheriffs –Jails- Three Strikes – Exhaustion

A panel reversed dismissal of two suits by two inmates of the Baker County Detention Center. Apparently one of the plaintiffs since being incarcerated has found litigation to be a form of recreation and brings many actions against the terms of his incarceration. In this matter both plaintiffs filed in state court and were accorded in pauperis status. The defendants removed the cases to federal court and sought dismissal as to one plaintiff, the recreational litigator, under the three strikes law and against the other for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court reversed on three strike by reading the law to apply to suits brought in federal court by the plaintiff where as here it was brought in state court and removed by the defendants. As to the exhaustion claim, the panel felt the lower court had not fairly considered the plaintiff’s allegations before ruling against him on the basis of the defendants’ defense.

Maldonado vs Baker County Sheriff’s Office https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012605.pdf

Arguable Probable Cause

I had some really helpful responses to my question about “arguable probable cause”. Apparently, the term is used in some circuits but not others. One great response was from a lawyer who really admire in Vancouver, Washington, Dan Lloyd who wrote: “Arguable probable cause” is germane only in the qualified immunity context. Essentially what it means (if properly applied) is that unless every reasonable officer would agree probable cause was lacking, probable cause is “arguable” and therefore the constitutional question is not “beyond debate,” which means the individual gets qualified immunity. So in other words, it’s another way of stating the constitutional question is not “beyond debate”.” Terrific explanation.

I guess I’m just too old (maybe I’m arguably middle aged), but I learned the constitution protected against searches and seizures that were not based upon probable cause. If it helps provide qualified immunity to say that an officer thought there was probable cause and a lot of other folks would have thought so too, but now in the resplendent courtroom after hearing a bunch of arguments the court doesn’t think so, but can forgive the mistake – well, maybe that makes some sense. From my perspective however I think it would be better for courts to frame the question as to whether there was or was not probable cause and if not, did the officers nevertheless act in good faith. I guess one can ask if there is per se arguable probable cause if a magistrate issues a warrant based on the stated probable cause? I always used to believe that when I prosecuted, I could prosecute someone if their was sufficient evidence to believe a crime had been committed and the defendant had committed it. Sometimes, I lost, but the result didn’t change the how the case was viewed in advance of the trial.

Anyway, thanks to Dan and others who responded and let’s hope the courts continue to find ways to recognize that officers don’t have to be correct, they just need probable cause – arguable or actual – to search or arrest.

Charles W. Thompson, Jr.

Of Counsel

P: (202) 466-5424 x7110

M: (240) 876-6790

D: (202) 742-1016

[facebook icon]https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/[twitter icon]https://twitter.com/imlalegal[linkedin icon]https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./

[logo]https://imla.org/

51 Monroe St. Suite 404
Rockville, MD, 20850

www.imla.org http://www.imla.org/

Plan Ahead!

IMLA’s 2022 Mid-Year Seminarhttps://imla.org/seminars/, April 8-11, 2022 in Washington, D.C.!

IMLA’s 2022 Annualhttps://imla.org/annual-conference/ Conference, October 19-23, 2022 in Portland, OR!

"I told you so" - George Orwell - Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Chuck Thompson <cthompson@imla.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 11:47:00 AM To: disasterrelief@lists.imla.org <disasterrelief@lists.imla.org>; 'policeadvisors@lists.imla.org' (policeadvisors@lists.imla.org) <policeadvisors@lists.imla.org>; Federal Law List Serve <federal@lists.imla.org>; counties@lists.imla.org <counties@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Disasterrelief] News of the DAy - Mandates against mandates - Jails - I'm too old 8th Circuit – ADA – No Mask Requirement Mandates – A Disability rights group filed suit against Iowa’s mandate that prohibited mask mandates. Their suit was on behalf of school children at risk who believed that the prohibition affected their rights under the ADA. A panel in a 2-1 decision of the court concluded that a mandate against mandates violated the plaintiffs’ rights. The majority concluded that mask requirements are reasonable accommodations under the ADA and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act required to protect the rights of plaintiffs' children, thus prohibiting reasonable accommodations violated the federal laws. The Arc of Iowa v. Kimberly Reynolds https://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/todays-opinions 11th Circuit – Prisoner Suits – Sheriffs –Jails- Three Strikes – Exhaustion A panel reversed dismissal of two suits by two inmates of the Baker County Detention Center. Apparently one of the plaintiffs since being incarcerated has found litigation to be a form of recreation and brings many actions against the terms of his incarceration. In this matter both plaintiffs filed in state court and were accorded in pauperis status. The defendants removed the cases to federal court and sought dismissal as to one plaintiff, the recreational litigator, under the three strikes law and against the other for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court reversed on three strike by reading the law to apply to suits brought in federal court by the plaintiff where as here it was brought in state court and removed by the defendants. As to the exhaustion claim, the panel felt the lower court had not fairly considered the plaintiff’s allegations before ruling against him on the basis of the defendants’ defense. Maldonado vs Baker County Sheriff’s Office https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012605.pdf Arguable Probable Cause I had some really helpful responses to my question about “arguable probable cause”. Apparently, the term is used in some circuits but not others. One great response was from a lawyer who really admire in Vancouver, Washington, Dan Lloyd who wrote: “Arguable probable cause” is germane only in the qualified immunity context. Essentially what it means (if properly applied) is that unless every reasonable officer would agree probable cause was lacking, probable cause is “arguable” and therefore the constitutional question is not “beyond debate,” which means the individual gets qualified immunity. So in other words, it’s another way of stating the constitutional question is not “beyond debate”.” Terrific explanation. I guess I’m just too old (maybe I’m arguably middle aged), but I learned the constitution protected against searches and seizures that were not based upon probable cause. If it helps provide qualified immunity to say that an officer thought there was probable cause and a lot of other folks would have thought so too, but now in the resplendent courtroom after hearing a bunch of arguments the court doesn’t think so, but can forgive the mistake – well, maybe that makes some sense. From my perspective however I think it would be better for courts to frame the question as to whether there was or was not probable cause and if not, did the officers nevertheless act in good faith. I guess one can ask if there is per se arguable probable cause if a magistrate issues a warrant based on the stated probable cause? I always used to believe that when I prosecuted, I could prosecute someone if their was sufficient evidence to believe a crime had been committed and the defendant had committed it. Sometimes, I lost, but the result didn’t change the how the case was viewed in advance of the trial. Anyway, thanks to Dan and others who responded and let’s hope the courts continue to find ways to recognize that officers don’t have to be correct, they just need probable cause – arguable or actual – to search or arrest. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! IMLA’s 2022 Mid-Year Seminar<https://imla.org/seminars/>, April 8-11, 2022 in Washington, D.C.! IMLA’s 2022 Annual<https://imla.org/annual-conference/> Conference, October 19-23, 2022 in Portland, OR! Check out our On-Demand webinar library<https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=imla&webcode=shopping&cart=0&shopsearchCat=Merchandise&productCat=Webinar> with 100+ webinars at your fingertips.