Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[0]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[0]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-15 00:37:05.720
	1	+2016-11-15 00:37:05.0

Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,139 @@
	1	+The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers.
	2	+
	3	+===Status quo qualified immunity defense can only be defeated by a clearly established constitutional rights violation. This prioritizes law enforcement officials.===
	4	+Hassel:
	5	+Diana Hassel Winter 1999 Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity Missouri Law Review
	6	+http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3402andcontext=mlr
	7	+
	8	+
	9	+"The threshold step... of the state"
	10	+
	11	+Merriam Webster defines limit as “a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible. Thus, the Aff burden is to advocate for a restriction in the application of qualified immunity either by limiting the quantity of cases in which it would apply or by limiting the quality of immunity in a way that decreases the amount of cases in which immunity is
	12	+applicable.
	13	+
	14	+===My advocacy is that the United States ought to limit the scope of applicability for qualified immunity by removing the requirement of clear establishment for a
	15	+constitutional violation.===
	16	+Wright:
	17	+Sam Wright (public interest lawyer) Nov. 3 2015 “Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity” Above the Law the
	18	+“clearly established” element of qualified immunity would be a good start
	19	+http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/
	20	+
	21	+
	22	+"Instead police officers... in the courts"
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+Prefer this because:
	26	+1. Merriam Webster defines limit as “a restriction on the size or amount of something
	27	+permissible or possible. Thus, the Aff burden is to advocate for a restriction in the application
	28	+of qualified immunity either by limiting the quantity of cases in which it would apply or by limiting the quality of immunity in a way that decreases the amount of cases in which immunity is applicable.
	29	+2. The AFF has to set the ground for the debate. Since qualified immunity is already a limited
	30	+status in that certain cases qualify and others do not, this topic necessitates a specific limitation to status quo qualified immunity. Don’t punish the Aff for defining the debate because a. the negative can always adjust their strategy, and b. binary T shells always put the aff behind
	31	+because they can make theoretical objections if I do specify and if I don’t, meaning default
	32	+against neg topicality or theory on aff specification
	33	+
	34	+My value is justice. The topic poses a question of legal rights within civil courts, and therefore
	35	+we ought to weigh what people are due in terms of civil rights. Justice requires evaluating a
	36	+context with consideration for intentions and consequences. For instance, taking others’ money is theft when a person does it, but legitimate taxation when the state does.
	37	+===The context for the resolution is the civil justice system, which requires an evaluation of mutual rights and restraints.===
	38	+Hart:
	39	+Mark HLA Hart "Are There Any Natural Rights?" The
	40	+Philosophical Review. Vol 64. No. 2 1955.
	41	+
	42	+
	43	+“A third very… suffering on them.”
	44	+
	45	+===Mutual restraints form the basis of state legitimacy, and civil rights maintains these reciprocal checks.===
	46	+Murphy:
	47	+Mark Murphy, C. (1988). Jurisprudence and the Social Contract. The American Journal of
	48	+Jurisprudence.
	49	+
	50	+
	51	+“Any modern regime… of political experience.”
	52	+
	53	+Thus, the standard is Preserving Procedural Rights Protections, which means we should preserve a system of reciprocal rights by maintaining checks on abuse of power and maintaining access to guaranteed civil and social rights.
	54	+
	55	+Prefer this for 2 additional reasons:
	56	+1. Procedural protections are necessary to promote rights.
	57	+===Even if we reform an imperfect system of procedural safeguards, we should change what we can to improve state accountability===
	58	+Delgado:
	59	+Richard, self-appointed Minority scholar, Chair of Law at the University of Alabama Law School, J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Professor Delgado’s teaching and writing focus on race, the legal profession, and social change, 2009, “Does Critical Legal Studies Have What Minorities Want, Arguing about Law”, p. 588-590
	60	+
	61	+“The CLS critique… what we want.”
	62	+
	63	+And, accountability requires every part of the system to be held accountable for its
	64	+allowances. Individual liability is key to preserve state accountability.
	65	+A. This is the best way to create change within a system. If an impersonal system is
	66	+indicted for a transgression it is much less likely to change because there is no
	67	+internal pressure to reform. Making individuals stakeholders in the systems they
	68	+participate in increases accountability to creating fair practices and procedures.
	69	+B. Individuals acting as part of the system, i.e. police officers, are complicit with the
	70	+transgressions of the system by nature of benefitting and operating under system
	71	+rules. If there is a systematic problem with the way that state agencies function,
	72	+individuals working within those agencies also must answer to their complacency
	73	+with the system.
	74	+
	75	+
	76	+I contend that removing the clearly established requirement best preserves procedural
	77	+protections.
	78	+===First, The clearly established requirement effectively denies individuals access to
	79	+certain constitutional protections.===
	80	+Hassel 2:
	81	+Diana Hassel Winter 1999 Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity Missouri Law Review
	82	+http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3402andcontext=mlr
	83	+
	84	+
	85	+“In some areas… qualified immunity defense.”
	86	+
	87	+Status quo has no accountability for courts to uphold constitutional rights of plaintiffs
	88	+because the law justifies excluding a discussion of any case regarding due process of
	89	+law. Procedural rights cannot exist in the status quo because individuals are
	90	+systematically denied rights protections for due process of law.
	91	+
	92	+
	93	+===Reasonableness of inquiry questions stem from the clearly established requirement and
	94	+give leeway to courts in siding with law enforcement.===
	95	+Hassel 3:
	96	+Diana Hassel Winter 1999 Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity Missouri Law Review
	97	+http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3402andcontext=mlr
	98	+
	99	+
	100	+“Finally, if the… violate plaintiff’s rights.”
	101	+
	102	+The requirement of clearly established allows the state to side with state officials without checks on power. This depletes the procedural safeguard of checks on the power of government. Removing the clearly established requirement requires the court to address procedural safeguards for individuals in any case where a constitutional violation occurs.
	103	+
	104	+
	105	+Second,
	106	+===Qualified immunity allows for police officers to escape accountability for use of excessive force.===
	107	+Sheng:
	108	+(Philip. Professor at BYU. An "Objectively Reasonable" Criticism of the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity in Excessive Force Cases Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 26 BYU J. Pub. L. 99 Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol26/iss1/5)
	109	+
	110	+“In Graham v. … force cases altogether.”
	111	+
	112	+Ambiguous use of the clearly established requirement allows police officers to use excessive force with little deterrence or recourse.
	113	+===Qualified Immunity allows for the justification of violence. Both municipalities and individual police officers are unlikely to be found liable under current law.===
	114	+Senkel:
	115	+1999 ( Tara. Attorney in New York. Civilians Often Need Protection From the Police: Let's Handcuff Police Brutality 15 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 385
	116	+(1998-1999). http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=falseandhandle=hein.journals/nylshr15andpage=385andcollection=journals#)
	117	+
	118	+“While victims of… are exigent circumstances.”
	119	+
	120	+Under current statute, municipalities are only held liable if the police officer was directly acting within the obligation of official policy. But police officers are only held accountable when they can be proved to have knowingly violate the constitution under the clearly established clause. Because there exists a large area in which neither of those requirements can be proven, victims are left with no procedural protections or recourse
	121	+against excessive force.
	122	+
	123	+Third, The clearly established requirement stands in the way of developing and protecting procedural rights. Attorneys only take on qualified immunity cases when there is little risk of losing the clearly established standard.
	124	+===Precedent can’t evolve in the status quo because of selection bias.===
	125	+Reinert:
	126	+Reinert, Alexander Does Qualified Immunity Matter? University of St. Thomas Law Journal. Volume 8 Spring 2011 (Interviews with 133 attorneys in qualified immunity cases)
	127	+
	128	+
	129	+“Nearly every respondent… their organization’s mission.”
	130	+
	131	+Thus, procedural protections cannot meaningfully exist in a world where plaintiffs must prove a clearly established violation. Only through removing the requirement can courts develop protections for individuals.
	132	+===Consideration of civil rights stagnates in a world where attorneys have disincentives to take the most controversial cases.===
	133	+Reinert 2:
	134	+Reinert, Alexander Does Qualified Immunity Matter? University of St. Thomas Law Journal. Volume 8 Spring 2011 (Interviews with 133 attorneys in qualified immunity cases)
	135	+
	136	+
	137	+“The data are… qualified immunity defense.”
	138	+
	139	+Therefore, not only is the aff a prerequisite to evaluating procedural rights protections but it also allows for the further evolution and development of the most difficult questions related to procedural rights. This expands the scope of which individuals can exercise their rights under the protection of the law.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-15 00:37:06.995

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Michael Ippolito

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Roseville Area EB

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+0

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+New Trier Schwabe Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Clearly Established AC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Apple Valley