Iowa Senate Approves Bill That Would Add Qualified Immunity To The State Law Books
Furnished content.
In 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court decided to align the state with one of the worst aspects of federal jurisprudence. Deciding it was too much to demand law enforcement officers perform their duties without violating rights, the state's top court decided to adopt a form of qualified immunity so plaintiffs could be just as screwed in state courts as in federal courts.The case prompting this decision dealt with an arrest of someone who drove an ATV through a ditch. This violated state law but did not violate city laws. So, the court decided this bizarre case involving a conflict of state and local laws should be the standard bearer for civil rights lawsuits going forward.A long dissent decried this decision, saying that lowering Iowa's standard to the federal standard was the wrong way to go. It would only make cops worse by providing them with a built-in excuse for every time they crossed constitutional lines.We should not voluntarily drape our constitutional law with the heavy chains of indefensible doctrine. We should aim to eliminate fictions in our law and be honest and forthright on the important question of what happens when officers of the law commit constitutional wrongs that inflict serious reputational, emotional, and financial harms on our citizens. That's been the standard in the state since this decision. For some reason -- with protests against police violence still ongoing around the nation -- the state legislature feels now is the time to codify the doctrine first conjured up by the US Supreme Court into Iowa law.The Iowa Senate passed legislation Monday intended to strengthen 'qualified immunity” for law enforcement officers who take forceful action in situations where state law is 'not sufficiently clear” to understand their conduct might violate someone's constitutional protections.Majority Republicans said the statutory language is needed to clarify court rulings and provide 'balance” in cases where the law was not 'clearly established” at the time of an incident giving rise to a claim against an officer. The bill does more than give Iowa officers a new defense tactic. It codifies the US Supreme Court's watered-down legal standards that have made it extremely difficult for plaintiffs suing over rights violations to succeed.Under provisions of the legislation, a law enforcement officer would not be found liable in any action for damages in an individual capacity if the state law was not sufficiently clear so that the officer would have understood the conduct was a violation of the Constitution or any other law, or the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim against the officer.The burden would be on the plaintiff to show that the law enforcement officer violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right and the officer's employing agency would not be liable if the officer was found not to be liable under the new provision. There is no reason to do this since state precedent says this already exists. What's happening here appears to be political point scoring that caters to the base these legislators have chosen to serve.'We're not here today to try to create something new,” said Sen. Dan Dawson, R-Council Bluffs, 'we're trying to preserve the current law of the land right now because there are a slew of political actors out there that have decided in making kicking law enforcement in their teeth a hobby every day.” If you're not creating anything new, why are you bothering? Is this the counter-hobby -- one that placates cops and gives cop fans a reason to cheer, even as it makes holding officers accountable much more difficult? The legislation is, at best, redundant. At worst, it's a public statement to law enforcement that their supposed oversight is more interested in keeping officers happy than making sure they respect the rights of the people they serve.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 13-Apr-2021
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Activists Say Biden Camp Taking Too Long To Properly Staff The FCC
Furnished content.
If you'll recall, the Trump administration rushed the appointment of Nathan Simington to the FCC last year, despite Simington having absolutely no real experience or qualifications for the role. That's because Simington was appointed for two other reasons. One being the idiotic (and utterly hypocritical if you tracked the net neutrality fights) effort by the Trump administration to try and have the FCC target Section 230, which was derailed by Trump's election loss.But the other purpose of Simington's rush announcement was to ensure the FCC would be gridlocked at 2-2 commissioners. Like the FTC, the FCC is comprised of a 3-2 partisan makeup depending on who controls the White House. And while Biden could have easily appointed a new FCC Commissioner to break that gridlock, we're now three months-plus into his Presidency and the Biden camp still hasn't appointed a third Democratic Commissioner (and potential new FCC boss).Without that majority, the FCC can't reverse a lot of Trump era policies, like net neutrality. Or the telecom-lobbyist backed effort to effectively lobotomize the FCC's consumer protection authority. And not too surprisingly, activists are starting to get a little punchy about the delay"The Federal Communications Commission is deadlocked, and will remain so until the Biden administration nominates, and the Senate confirms, a fifth commissioner. But we desperately need a functional FCC now: Millions of people are without reliable Internet access in the midst of a pandemic, kids are sitting outside Taco Bell to do homework, and people need to access information about how to get a vaccine." On the one hand, some delay is understandable given the sheer volume of priorities on the administration's plate. At the same time, as telecom policy wonk Harold Feld notes, the delay is effectively crippling the FCC's ability to do its job during a pandemic that is clearly showcasing the essential nature of broadband. And the window broadband industry reform advocates are working with could be a very narrow one:"That's basically a year lost on the ability to move forward on anything remotely controversial, or starting major new initiatives. That's huge, particularly if either the House or Senate (or both) flips in 2022. As I say, it's understandable given the multiple crises and the catastrophic damage done by the Trump Administration to the basic infrastructure of governance. But even if it's understandable, it's a trade-off with costs that need to be appreciated." While vague, the Biden broadband plan is hitting most of the right notes with activists, given its heavy focus on community broadband efforts (and a strange concept known as "more competition"). But it's going to have one hell of a time getting passed a heavily telecom-lobbied Congress. Meanwhile, the FCC, the one agency perfectly tailored to holding telecom monopolies accountable, is effectively being forced to sit on its hands and wait before it's able to actually do its job and reverse Trump era policies focused largely on one thing: making AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast happy.The lag in prioritizing the appointment of a new FCC head is just the latest indication of our myopic, imbalanced obsession with "big tech" as the only policy conversation worth having, while "big telecom" gets a free pass. While "big tech" gobbles up all the policy oxygen and sees endless calls for antitrust reform, "big telecom" continues to not only expand its massive broadband monopoly and vertically-integrated media empires, but increasingly mimic all the worst aspects of "big tech" as telecom giants increasingly push into online advertising."Big telecom" is every bit as problematic as "big tech" (in some ways worse given telecom's physical monopoly over access itself and close alliance with law enforcement and intelligence) yet the sector continues to get DC policy attention that floats somewhere between kid gloves and outright apathy.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 13-Apr-2021
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|