Legal professionals will be aware that police generally have qualified immunity – a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from liability for their constitutional misconduct. However, it should be noted, as in a recent case handled by the Second Circuit Appeals Court, this immunity might not hold ground when communication at the public interest’s heart is retaliated against.
In an incident that came to light, a gentleman named R. Anthony Rupp was ticketed by a police officer for simply telling him to turn on his headlights. The issue ensued when Mr. Rupp saw an official police cruiser, being driven without headlights, accelerate towards two women crossing the street. After narrowly avoiding collision, Officer McAlister, who was driving the vehicle, was told by Mr. Rupp to turn on his headlights. The officer’s response was to confront Mr. Rupp and latterly issue him a ticket for violating the City of Buffalo’s noise prohibition.
When brought before the court, the officer was awarded qualified immunity, the ruling being that Mr. Rupp’s shout, without knowing the vehicle was a police vehicle, wasn’t protected by the First Amendment. However, on appeal, the statement was overturned, with the judge at the Second Circuit Appeals Court stating, “not knowing that the vehicle’s driver was a police officer had no bearing on whether Rupp’s shout was speech on a matter of public concern“.
The Appeals Court even disputed the lower court’s claim that an expletive used by Mr. Rupp stripped his shout of First Amendment protections. The entire ordeal culminated in the Appeals Court denying the officers qualified immunity and allowing Mr. Rupp’s lawsuit (wherein he only seeks a recorded declaration of officers violating his rights and a token amount of $1) to move forward.
This case serves as an important precedent showing that qualified immunity might not serve as a blanket protection if officers engage in retaliation contradicting Constitutional rights. Legal experts will agree that this case’s outcome essentially safeguards people’s rights to communicate on matters of public safety without fear of retaliation. Complete details of the incident and the court proceedings can be found here.
Also worth noting are a few other ongoing legal issues in the public domain: