Dr. M Blatstein's Blog

WHEN QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS ABUSED

WHEN QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS ABUSED, A VIEW FROM SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THE JUDICIAL SPACE.

I’m Dr. Marc Blatstein. With work, I got my license reinstated and my career back. 

Judge CARLTON W. REEVES: ORDER GRANTING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.pdf

 or

WHEN QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS ABUSED

 

The Constitution says everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law – even at the hands of law enforcement.

  • Over the decades, though, judges have expanded legal doctrine to protect law enforcement officers from being held accountable for their actions.
  • The resulting doctrine, called “Qualified Immunity,” has not just evolved but morphed into Absolute Immunity, a transformation that underscores the gravity of the situation.
  • This has left judges with few viable options, a stark reality underscoring the urgent need for change.

 

This story starts with a man (Jamison) driving his Mercedes-Benz CLK-Class convertible, purchased 13 days before from a car dealer in Pennsylvania, to his home in South Carolina. The journey takes him through Mississippi.

 

Now, Jamison didn’t

  • Look like a “suspicious person
  • Making an “improper lane change.

Further, Jamison wasn’t

  • Suspected of passing counterfeit $20 bills,
  • Mentally ill, and in need of help.
  • Walking back from a restaurant.
  • Standing outside of his apartment.
  • Sleeping in his bed
  • Driving over the speed limit.

No, Jamison was a Black man driving his new Mercedes convertible.

  • His mistake was being black and in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  • The following came from Officer McClendon’s testimony.

Officer McClendon says he stopped Jamison because the temporary tag on his car was “folded over to where [he] couldn’t see it.”

  • It must have been held with only two bolts, but it had four.

Officer McClendon asked Jamison for “his license, insurance, [and] the paperwork on the vehicle because it didn’t have a tag.”

  • Jamison provided his bill of sale, insurance, and South Carolina driver’s license.

Officer McClendon’s background check using the El Paso Intelligence Center (“EPIC”), the National Criminal Information Center (“NCIC”),

  • Jamison’s criminal history and the VIN on his car all came back clear.
  • But he never told Jamison.

Next comes lies and intimidation from the officer.

Officer McClendon asks Jamison if he could search his car. Jamison asked him, “For what?”

  • “To search for illegal narcotics, weapons, large amounts of money, anything illegal.”

First Request to Search.

  • When asked why, the officer changed the conversation to “What kind of work do you do?” I’m a welder.

Second Request to Search.

  • Officer McClendon said he had received a phone call reporting that there were 10 kilos of cocaine in Jamison’s car.
  • That was a lie, and Jamison said No.

Third and Fourth Persistent Requests to Search.

  • Officer: “Come on, man. Let me search your car.”

Fifth Request to Search.

  • “I need to search your car . . . because I got the phone call [about] 10 kilos of cocaine.”
  • Jamison kept telling the officer there was nothing in the car, and the officer refused to listen.

Officer McClendon continued to bring up

  1. “The 10 kilos of cocaine,”
  2.  Asserted that the car was stolen,
  3. …and asked how many vehicles he owned, and he claimed that Jamison did not have insurance on the car.

Jamison finally gave up. He told Officer McClendon, “As long as I can see what you’re doing, you can search the vehicle.”

  1. Officer McClendon searched Jamison’s car “from the engine compartment to the trunk to the undercarriage to underneath the engine to the back seats to anywhere to account for all the voids inside the vehicle.”
  2. In his deposition, he did not find “anything suspicious whatsoever,” and
  3. The search dog gave no indication, “confirming there was nothing inside the vehicle.”

In total, the stop lasted One hour and 50 minutes.

  • Pages 14 – 72 Cover the Law, and I’m not an attorney.
  • Yet, the status quo is extraordinary and unsustainable.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WAS GRANTED,

BUT

  • This matter will be set for trial in due course.
  • It is this author’s humble opinion that the court’s common sense interpretation of
  • Qualified Immunity needs to be revisited.

240.888.7778

PPRSUS.com

Dr. Blatstein (Marc)

Leave a Comment