The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled that police officers who conducted a no-knock raid on a house, injuring four unarmed individuals, were not protected by qualified immunity – a type of immunity that shields individual government officials from being sued over actions undertaken as part of their duties.
The incident in question took place in Febraury 2018 when police conducted a no-knock raid based on a tip off at the house of Richard and Ada Anglemeyer, an elderly couple in their late 70s. Despite not having any evidence confirming that other four members of the household had knowledge of or were involved in the alleged drug activities of their son, Mark Anglemeyer, the police chose to carry out the raid.
The Special Emergency Response Team, consisting of 43 officers, arrived at the home around 6:00 AM and entered forcibly without knocking. The subsequent course of action led to four members of the family suffering from long-term injuries, with two of them having to undergo surgery.
In response to this incident, the family filed a lawsuit in a federal court claiming that the police violated their Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. However, the district court initially granted summary judgment to the officers, ruling that they were protected by qualified immunity.
Undeterred, the family appealed to the Third Circuit, which overturned the initial verdict on the grounds that the officers did not meet the elements necessary for qualified immunity, specifically (1) their actions were not objectively reasonable and (2) they violated a clearly known law or right. The Court was of the opinion that arresting officers are only eligible for qualified immunity if both these elements are met.
The ruling of this case has set a significant precedent regarding the application of qualified immunity within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit, covering Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. As the court emphasized, the officers’ excessive force was unlawful under the given circumstances where the plaintiffs were visibly unarmed, outnumbered, cooperative, and not suspected of any wrongdoing while being in their own home.
For more details, refer to the full article.