Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil — Civil Rights — Qualified immunity

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 23, 2012//

Civil — Civil Rights — Qualified immunity

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 23, 2012//

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil
Civil Rights
Qualified immunity

Officers responding to a report of a possible planned massacre at the school were entitled to qualified immunity.

“[A]lthough the panel majority purported to accept the findings of the District Court, it changed those findings in several key respects. As Judge Rawlinson correctly observed, “the discrete incident that precipitated the entry in this case was Mrs. Huff’s response to the question regarding whether there were guns in the house.” Id., at 31.

The District Court’s finding that Mrs. Huff “immediately turned around and ran into the house” implicitly rejected Mrs. Huff’s contrary testimony that she walked into the house after telling the officers that she was going to get her husband. Id., at 3.

The panel majority upheld the District Court’s findings of fact and acknowledged that it could not reverse the District Court simply because it “may have weighed the testimony of the witnesses and other evidence in another manner.” Id., at 15. But the panel majority’s determination that petitioners were not entitled to qualified immunity rested on an account of the facts that differed markedly from the District Court’s finding. According to the panel majority, Mrs. Huff “merely asserted her right to end her conversation with the officers and returned to her home” after telling the officers “that she would go get her husband.” Id., at 12, 25.

11-208 Ryburn v. Huff Per curiam.

VIEW FULL TEXT

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests