Tweet
Another bad cop gets off, protected by his badge.
Imagine your ex girlfriend just got in a car accident as a passenger. Her drunk current boyfriend was driving, and crashed at 70mph into a Greyhound bus. After a visit to the hospital where you were informed she was unlikely to survive, you went to the bar you knew she had been at, and asked some questions. Got to know some of the people there who saw her leave with her clearly drunk boyfriend.
And then the father of her drunk boyfriend somehow hears you're poking around about his drunk son. And that father is an off-duty DHS agent. And he comes over to your car threatening to "put a bullet through your ****ing skull" for asking questions, takes out his gun and tries to smash through your window with it, and then turns the gun on you and pulls the trigger. Only luckily the gun jams, and you live.
Then after you and him call 911, you're the one that ends up in the back of a police cruiser because he's a federal agent and Blue backs Blue. Only later, do the security cameras vindicate you and show what he did, leading to your release.
Now imagine not being able to even sue this piece of crap, because of that badge. Despite the fact that he wasn't acting as an agent at the time. Despite the fact that he nearly murdered you, used excessive force, and unlwafully detained you..
That's how the system works today. It's long past time for a new system
https://www.statesman.com/story/opin...ts/8278421002/
EDITORIALS
Editorial: Texans deserve day in court against rogue federal agents
By American-Statesman Editorial Board
Federal Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was outraged by his own court’s ruling.
“If you wear a federal badge, you can inflict excessive force on someone with little fear of liability,” Willett lamented in a March opinion as the appellate court, bound by prior rulings, blocked a lawsuit against a federal agent outside Houston who engaged in an appalling abuse of power.
"Middle-management circuit judges must salute smartly and follow precedent," Willett added, even when that means “private citizens who are brutalized — even killed — by rogue federal officials” can find no relief in the courts.
We find that outcome as intolerable as Willett does. Texans, indeed all Americans, should expect the rule of law to apply to federal agents, too. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming weeks whether to take up the Texas case of Byrd v. Lamb in its next term. We urge the justices to do so and set this matter right.
The case centers around a 2019 altercation between Kevin Byrd and Ray Lamb in a Conroe parking lot. Byrd was visiting the scene of a recent car crash involving his ex-girlfriend and Lamb’s son, trying to piece together what happened. Lamb, apparently incensed that Byrd was sniffing around, stepped in front of Byrd’s car to prevent him from leaving. Then, according to court documents, Lamb “pointed a gun at Byrd, tried to smash his driver’s side window with a gun, and threatened to ‘put a bullet through (his) f------ skull’ and ‘blow (his) head off.’” Then Lamb pulled the trigger. Byrd believes he could have been killed, had the gun not jammed.
Unquestionably an assault like that would land anyone else in legal peril. But Lamb happened to be an agent with the Department of Homeland Security. Even though the altercation had nothing to do with Lamb’s duties as a federal officer, he flashed his badge at the police who came to the scene, and the officers detained Byrd instead. Fortunately for Byrd, the parking lot had a security camera that captured video of the entire encounter. Once police saw Byrd had done nothing wrong, he was released.
With the support of the nonprofit Institute for Justice, Byrd sued Lamb for using excessive force and unlawfully detaining him. But Lamb’s attorneys argued that as a federal agent, he had qualified immunity. In March, relying on 5th Circuit precedents, the federal appellate court agreed — even as Willett acknowledged the injustice of “allowing federal officials to operate in something resembling a Constitution-free zone.”
In the landmark Bivens case 50 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that people could sue federal agents who violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Over the years, however, appellate courts have disagreed on what kinds of cases can seek that relief. Even the Supreme Court in recent years has been reluctant to expand the right to sue beyond the limited circumstances of the Bivens case, which involved federal narcotics agents searching a man’s home without a warrant and handcuffing him in front of his family.
The patchwork of rulings by different appellate courts means a lawsuit that would be allowed to proceed against a federal agent in Pennsylvania, Florida or Arizona would not clear legal hurdles in, say, Minnesota or Texas. That conflict alone begs for resolution at the Supreme Court.
More importantly, however, citizens deserve an avenue for redress when a federal agent’s conduct is blatantly and dangerously outside the law. Byrd’s case does not involve second-guessing an officer’s split-second decision in the line of duty. It demands consequences for a rogue agent whose badge should not be a shield from accountability.
Byrd’s case may have a ring of familiarity for Austinites who remember the case of former Austin police detective Charles Kleinert. After fatally shooting an unarmed man named Larry Jackson in 2013, Kleinert sidestepped a manslaughter charge by virtue of belonging to a federal task force. While Kleinert’s case involved protection from criminal charges, and Byrd v. Lamb involves protection from lawsuits, both illustrate how court precedents allow reckless federal agents to act with impunity.
The Supreme Court could bring much-needed clarity to the civil side of the problem by taking up Byrd v. Lamb in its next term. Americans’ rights under the Constitution become meaningless if the courts fail to protect them.
Imagine your ex girlfriend just got in a car accident as a passenger. Her drunk current boyfriend was driving, and crashed at 70mph into a Greyhound bus. After a visit to the hospital where you were informed she was unlikely to survive, you went to the bar you knew she had been at, and asked some questions. Got to know some of the people there who saw her leave with her clearly drunk boyfriend.
And then the father of her drunk boyfriend somehow hears you're poking around about his drunk son. And that father is an off-duty DHS agent. And he comes over to your car threatening to "put a bullet through your ****ing skull" for asking questions, takes out his gun and tries to smash through your window with it, and then turns the gun on you and pulls the trigger. Only luckily the gun jams, and you live.
Then after you and him call 911, you're the one that ends up in the back of a police cruiser because he's a federal agent and Blue backs Blue. Only later, do the security cameras vindicate you and show what he did, leading to your release.
Now imagine not being able to even sue this piece of crap, because of that badge. Despite the fact that he wasn't acting as an agent at the time. Despite the fact that he nearly murdered you, used excessive force, and unlwafully detained you..
That's how the system works today. It's long past time for a new system
https://www.statesman.com/story/opin...ts/8278421002/
EDITORIALS
Editorial: Texans deserve day in court against rogue federal agents
By American-Statesman Editorial Board
Federal Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was outraged by his own court’s ruling.
“If you wear a federal badge, you can inflict excessive force on someone with little fear of liability,” Willett lamented in a March opinion as the appellate court, bound by prior rulings, blocked a lawsuit against a federal agent outside Houston who engaged in an appalling abuse of power.
"Middle-management circuit judges must salute smartly and follow precedent," Willett added, even when that means “private citizens who are brutalized — even killed — by rogue federal officials” can find no relief in the courts.
We find that outcome as intolerable as Willett does. Texans, indeed all Americans, should expect the rule of law to apply to federal agents, too. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming weeks whether to take up the Texas case of Byrd v. Lamb in its next term. We urge the justices to do so and set this matter right.
The case centers around a 2019 altercation between Kevin Byrd and Ray Lamb in a Conroe parking lot. Byrd was visiting the scene of a recent car crash involving his ex-girlfriend and Lamb’s son, trying to piece together what happened. Lamb, apparently incensed that Byrd was sniffing around, stepped in front of Byrd’s car to prevent him from leaving. Then, according to court documents, Lamb “pointed a gun at Byrd, tried to smash his driver’s side window with a gun, and threatened to ‘put a bullet through (his) f------ skull’ and ‘blow (his) head off.’” Then Lamb pulled the trigger. Byrd believes he could have been killed, had the gun not jammed.
Unquestionably an assault like that would land anyone else in legal peril. But Lamb happened to be an agent with the Department of Homeland Security. Even though the altercation had nothing to do with Lamb’s duties as a federal officer, he flashed his badge at the police who came to the scene, and the officers detained Byrd instead. Fortunately for Byrd, the parking lot had a security camera that captured video of the entire encounter. Once police saw Byrd had done nothing wrong, he was released.
With the support of the nonprofit Institute for Justice, Byrd sued Lamb for using excessive force and unlawfully detaining him. But Lamb’s attorneys argued that as a federal agent, he had qualified immunity. In March, relying on 5th Circuit precedents, the federal appellate court agreed — even as Willett acknowledged the injustice of “allowing federal officials to operate in something resembling a Constitution-free zone.”
In the landmark Bivens case 50 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that people could sue federal agents who violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Over the years, however, appellate courts have disagreed on what kinds of cases can seek that relief. Even the Supreme Court in recent years has been reluctant to expand the right to sue beyond the limited circumstances of the Bivens case, which involved federal narcotics agents searching a man’s home without a warrant and handcuffing him in front of his family.
The patchwork of rulings by different appellate courts means a lawsuit that would be allowed to proceed against a federal agent in Pennsylvania, Florida or Arizona would not clear legal hurdles in, say, Minnesota or Texas. That conflict alone begs for resolution at the Supreme Court.
More importantly, however, citizens deserve an avenue for redress when a federal agent’s conduct is blatantly and dangerously outside the law. Byrd’s case does not involve second-guessing an officer’s split-second decision in the line of duty. It demands consequences for a rogue agent whose badge should not be a shield from accountability.
Byrd’s case may have a ring of familiarity for Austinites who remember the case of former Austin police detective Charles Kleinert. After fatally shooting an unarmed man named Larry Jackson in 2013, Kleinert sidestepped a manslaughter charge by virtue of belonging to a federal task force. While Kleinert’s case involved protection from criminal charges, and Byrd v. Lamb involves protection from lawsuits, both illustrate how court precedents allow reckless federal agents to act with impunity.
The Supreme Court could bring much-needed clarity to the civil side of the problem by taking up Byrd v. Lamb in its next term. Americans’ rights under the Constitution become meaningless if the courts fail to protect them.
The DHS Agent Who Tried To Kill Kevin Byrd Can't Be Sued—Because He Works for the Federal Government
It's almost impossible to hold federal officers to account.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent Ray Lamb was not acting in his professional capacity when he approached Kevin Byrd in the parking lot of a Texas bar and allegedly threatened to "put a bullet through [his] fucking skull," nor was Lamb on duty when he took his gun and attempted to smash the window of Byrd's car. He was acting as a private citizen when he made those threats, which also included pulling the trigger. Luckily for Byrd, the gun jammed.
But Lamb has an advantage most other would-be murderers don't: That gun was given to him by the government in his capacity as a federal law enforcement officer. Now, Lamb's badge is insulating him from responsibility for his actions, as current legal doctrine essentially makes it impossible to hold federal officers accountable in civil court—even for actions taken in their personal lives.
"It's the definition of official corruption," says Anya Bidwell, an attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a public interest law firm representing Byrd in a suit against Lamb. "He used the power given to him by the federal government to benefit his own private interests."
On the morning of February 2, 2019, Byrd arrived at a bar in Conroe, Texas, to speak with someone on-site who could shed light on a gruesome car crash his ex-girlfriend, Darcy Wade, had been in after leaving that establishment in the hours prior. Unsure she'd survive, Byrd had just visited her in the hospital after Wade's new boyfriend—an inebriated Eric Lamb, Ray Lamb's son—drove headlong at 70 miles per hour into a Greyhound bus.
Lamb approached Byrd as he sought to leave the parking lot, furious that Byrd was collecting details on his son's drunk driving. Both men dialed 911, but it was Byrd who ended up in the back of a police car.
"If I tried to do this and Kevin called police…they would immediately detain me. It would be clear as day that I am the one who is trying essentially to hurt this person," posits IJ's Bidwell. "Not only is it that DHS Officer Lamb is trusted here when local police arrive, but then when you try to sue him, you can't sue him, because he happens to work for the government. There is essentially no win for plaintiffs in such cases."
Indeed, a federal court ruled in March that Lamb's federal badge also serves as a shield that grants him absolute immunity from any claim for damages without so much as a jury trial. The decision stems from Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a 1971 Supreme Court ruling that allowed a man to sue federal officers after they performed a warrantless search of his home and later strip-searched him at a courthouse. That precedent has been watered down over the years by subsequent decisions, requiring that courts analyze if new cases follow the exact same factual framework. If not, judges are told to trash the case when there are "special factors counseling hesitation."
The decision in Byrd's case shows just how laughably subjective that standard now is. "Byrd's lawsuit differs from Bivens in several meaningful ways," wrote a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. "This case arose in a parking lot, not a private home as was the case in Bivens." We are somehow supposed to believe that matters significantly enough such that Lamb could not have known his conduct was wrong. What's more, the panel wrote that "Congress did not make individual officers statutorily liable for excessive-force or unlawful-detention claims."
Such individuals are slightly more liable for Fourth Amendment violations if they work at the local or state level. But qualified immunity—another legal construct—does a great deal to protect them from accountability, as well. The doctrine holds that government officials can violate your constitutional rights without having to pay for it in civil court so long as the exact way they violated those rights has not yet been ruled unconstitutional in a prior decision from the Supreme Court or in the same federal circuit. It has protected cops who allegedly committed assault and theft, cops who violated the First Amendment, and cops who destroyed property, among others.
But though qualified immunity is difficult to overcome, it's not impossible, like the cops who didn't receive the protections after shooting a man 22 times as he lay facedown on the ground.
It is only federal officers who maintain almost complete freedom from accountability, thanks to a hole in constitutional law. For that same reason, St. Paul Police Officer Heather Weyker was able to skirt a civil court trial after fabricating a sex-trafficking ring and throwing innocent people in jail on false charges. A court said she was not entitled to qualified immunity. Yet simply because she completed that job as part of a federal task force, she will not have to pay for her transgressions—a strange loophole given only to the most powerful among us.
Byrd hopes to change that. After reviewing the security footage of that February morning, police eventually arrested Lamb, although he was not terminated from his position. Even with criminal charges filed, however, Lamb was still able to evade the suit, which is scheduled to be conferenced by the Supreme Court next month. Byrd is not the only one hoping for a reprieve.
"Redress for a federal officer's unconstitutional acts is either extremely limited or wholly nonexistent, allowing federal officials to operate in something resembling a Constitution-free zone," said Judge Don Willett of the 5th Circuit, who concurred with the opinion. It was "precedentially inescapable," he said, his hands tied by past decisions. But it shouldn't be.
"It certainly smacks of self-dealing when Congress subjects state and local officials to money damages for violating the Constitution but gives a pass to rogue federal officials who do the same," he wrote. "I add my voice to those lamenting today's rights-without-remedies regime, hoping (against hope) that as the chorus grows louder, change comes sooner."
It's almost impossible to hold federal officers to account.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent Ray Lamb was not acting in his professional capacity when he approached Kevin Byrd in the parking lot of a Texas bar and allegedly threatened to "put a bullet through [his] fucking skull," nor was Lamb on duty when he took his gun and attempted to smash the window of Byrd's car. He was acting as a private citizen when he made those threats, which also included pulling the trigger. Luckily for Byrd, the gun jammed.
But Lamb has an advantage most other would-be murderers don't: That gun was given to him by the government in his capacity as a federal law enforcement officer. Now, Lamb's badge is insulating him from responsibility for his actions, as current legal doctrine essentially makes it impossible to hold federal officers accountable in civil court—even for actions taken in their personal lives.
"It's the definition of official corruption," says Anya Bidwell, an attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a public interest law firm representing Byrd in a suit against Lamb. "He used the power given to him by the federal government to benefit his own private interests."
On the morning of February 2, 2019, Byrd arrived at a bar in Conroe, Texas, to speak with someone on-site who could shed light on a gruesome car crash his ex-girlfriend, Darcy Wade, had been in after leaving that establishment in the hours prior. Unsure she'd survive, Byrd had just visited her in the hospital after Wade's new boyfriend—an inebriated Eric Lamb, Ray Lamb's son—drove headlong at 70 miles per hour into a Greyhound bus.
Lamb approached Byrd as he sought to leave the parking lot, furious that Byrd was collecting details on his son's drunk driving. Both men dialed 911, but it was Byrd who ended up in the back of a police car.
"If I tried to do this and Kevin called police…they would immediately detain me. It would be clear as day that I am the one who is trying essentially to hurt this person," posits IJ's Bidwell. "Not only is it that DHS Officer Lamb is trusted here when local police arrive, but then when you try to sue him, you can't sue him, because he happens to work for the government. There is essentially no win for plaintiffs in such cases."
Indeed, a federal court ruled in March that Lamb's federal badge also serves as a shield that grants him absolute immunity from any claim for damages without so much as a jury trial. The decision stems from Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a 1971 Supreme Court ruling that allowed a man to sue federal officers after they performed a warrantless search of his home and later strip-searched him at a courthouse. That precedent has been watered down over the years by subsequent decisions, requiring that courts analyze if new cases follow the exact same factual framework. If not, judges are told to trash the case when there are "special factors counseling hesitation."
The decision in Byrd's case shows just how laughably subjective that standard now is. "Byrd's lawsuit differs from Bivens in several meaningful ways," wrote a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. "This case arose in a parking lot, not a private home as was the case in Bivens." We are somehow supposed to believe that matters significantly enough such that Lamb could not have known his conduct was wrong. What's more, the panel wrote that "Congress did not make individual officers statutorily liable for excessive-force or unlawful-detention claims."
Such individuals are slightly more liable for Fourth Amendment violations if they work at the local or state level. But qualified immunity—another legal construct—does a great deal to protect them from accountability, as well. The doctrine holds that government officials can violate your constitutional rights without having to pay for it in civil court so long as the exact way they violated those rights has not yet been ruled unconstitutional in a prior decision from the Supreme Court or in the same federal circuit. It has protected cops who allegedly committed assault and theft, cops who violated the First Amendment, and cops who destroyed property, among others.
But though qualified immunity is difficult to overcome, it's not impossible, like the cops who didn't receive the protections after shooting a man 22 times as he lay facedown on the ground.
It is only federal officers who maintain almost complete freedom from accountability, thanks to a hole in constitutional law. For that same reason, St. Paul Police Officer Heather Weyker was able to skirt a civil court trial after fabricating a sex-trafficking ring and throwing innocent people in jail on false charges. A court said she was not entitled to qualified immunity. Yet simply because she completed that job as part of a federal task force, she will not have to pay for her transgressions—a strange loophole given only to the most powerful among us.
Byrd hopes to change that. After reviewing the security footage of that February morning, police eventually arrested Lamb, although he was not terminated from his position. Even with criminal charges filed, however, Lamb was still able to evade the suit, which is scheduled to be conferenced by the Supreme Court next month. Byrd is not the only one hoping for a reprieve.
"Redress for a federal officer's unconstitutional acts is either extremely limited or wholly nonexistent, allowing federal officials to operate in something resembling a Constitution-free zone," said Judge Don Willett of the 5th Circuit, who concurred with the opinion. It was "precedentially inescapable," he said, his hands tied by past decisions. But it shouldn't be.
"It certainly smacks of self-dealing when Congress subjects state and local officials to money damages for violating the Constitution but gives a pass to rogue federal officials who do the same," he wrote. "I add my voice to those lamenting today's rights-without-remedies regime, hoping (against hope) that as the chorus grows louder, change comes sooner."
Comment