Justices Broaden Immunity for Officers

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement officers are immune from lawsuits for mishandling, losing or even stealing personal property that comes under their control in the course of their official duties, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The case was brought by a federal prison inmate, but the ruling was not limited to the prison context. It was an interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which applies to federal employees’ liability for damages and generally waives immunity from being sued.

The statute has numerous exceptions that preserve immunity in particular situations, however. The exception at issue in the case provides that “any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer” will be immune from suit for “any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty or the detention of any goods, merchandise or other property.”

The question was the meaning of the phrase “any other law enforcement officer.” Did Congress mean to confer blanket immunity for property-related offenses on the part of any federal law enforcement officer? Or was the immunity limited to officers engaged in tax or customs work?

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/23scotus.html?th&emc=th

---

This is going to lead to problems. Big problems. There recently was a case where a man and his wifes life savings were confiscated and not returned. This ruling makes it that much harder for people in a similar position to ever get their property returned. Bad bad feeling about this.

thanks GOP (and complacent dems), for utterly destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights. :grr:

If there is any argument in favor of liberally interpreting the Second Amendment, this is it!

We can only hope that the heads of Constitutional scholars, from both parties, are exploding all over the country.

I would be hopeful that a constitutional challenge would be successful, but when's the last time the Supremes have apologized and/or admitted being wrong?

We are screwn.

Every time a GOP falls into the tender hands of the law, strip the assets! And then be sure to grab Bush and Cheney before they flee the country.

I see that it would be no great stretch of the law and this interpretation to ensure that the crooks who robbed us blind repay everything to the Treasury--as long as it is directed to the public good, there's no problem.

They can confiscate all your stuff at the same time. :puke:

Looks like the Reich Court is doing its job, only this time it's a more diverse.

The damage Bush and his Fascist Federalist Society pals have done to the courts will take a generation to repair

It appears that the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments have all taken mortal blows from the strict constructionists inflicted on our country by the Republicans. And now the Fifth Amendment, that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law, is on the ropes. Let freedom reign, baby!

But don't fuck with the Third Amendment.

and what will we, can we, do about it?

:kick:

And if we do get mad, the Bushies will be there to point us at the Liberals, Gays, and any other scapegoats they can think of (though Liberal now encomapsses many hated subgroups, allowing Bushies to have that Plausible Deniaibility that they aren't hating by race, just "by opinion").

No point. 95% chance. We have been reprogrammed into exact model replicas of the 1930s Germans these last two decades.

On DU, one can close one's eyes and pretend it isn't so, but it is so.

What can we do about it? What could be done about the Nazis in 1937 Germany?

I wish I was speaking hyperbole, but I am not.

Wonder if this applies to SEC stuff, too, or if it only applies to those agencies that more effect poor people.

IE does this mean you can't sue the agency nor the employee, or does this mean that you must sue the agency directly, and not the employee, for any misdeeds on the part of the employee while on the job?

Or will if challenged with the current bench.

brought to you by a enablers and traitors.

Jesus tap dancing Christ

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-9130.pdf

This over $177 dollars worth of property?

Comment, this involved the liability of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT For this property NOT the liability of whoever actually LOST the property. Technically the Petitioner could still sue whoever lost the items, if he can find out who that was. The Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA) was Congress giving up the Federal Government's Sovereign Immunity except for the exception stated in the FTCA.

Now the Court did mentioned the Administrative tort Claim the Petitioner filed, but was denied for he had signed a statement that he received all of his property but when he looked at the items again in his cell he found the items missing. Since he had signed a paper saying he had all of his property the administrative claim was denied, so he filed this FTCA action for $177.

n/t

part of the 5 to 4 decision that said governments could use imminent domain to increase their tax base.