Nieves v. Bartlett

Last updated
Nieves v. Bartlett
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 26, 2018
Decided May 28, 2019
Full case nameLuis A. Nieves, et al. v. Russell P. Bartlett
Docket no. 17-1174
Citations587 U.S. ___ ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1715; 204 L. Ed. 2d 1
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorBartlett v. Nieves, 712 F. App'x 613 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2709 (2018).
Holding
Probable cause generally defeats a retaliatory arrest claim, except for when officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh; Thomas (except Part II–D)
ConcurrenceThomas (in part)
Concur/dissentGorsuch
Concur/dissentGinsburg
DissentSotomayor

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest. [1]

Contents

Background

Arctic Man is a snow-themed race occurring annually in the March–April period (as the spring breaks and before the snow and ice thaws) in Interior Alaska that draws around 10,000 spectators and creates a festival atmosphere similar to Burning Man. Because of the potential for drunken misbehavior, the event is patrolled by Alaska State Troopers. At the 2014 event, Robert Bartlett was one of the spectators and brought his recreational vehicle along with a keg of beer. State trooper Sergeant Luis Nieves approached Bartlett, who was visibly intoxicated, and requested him to stow the keg in his RV. Bartlett refused to acknowledge Nieves. As there was no legal issue with having the keg outside the RV or any cause to suspect criminal activity, Nieves continued his route. Later, a younger man was approached by Trooper Bryce Weight, who believed that the man was underage and should not be drinking. Bartlett overheard that, approached the two, told the younger man that he did not have to answer the trooper's question, and as loudly instructed Weight to leave the younger man alone. After additional confrontation, Weight pushed Bartlett away, which led to Bartlett becoming physically aggressive. Nieves came by quickly to help Weight subdue Bartlett and arrested him on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, but they were never followed through out of budgetary concerns. Bartlett spent some hours in a drunk tank before he was released.

Later, Bartlett filed a lawsuit against Nieves and Weight in the Alaska District Court. Among Bartlett's charges were that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned. He claimed that after Nieves had apprehended him, he told him, "Bet you wish you would have talked to me now." However, evidence from partial body cameras worn by the troopers did not include that statement. The District Court made summary judgement against all of Bartlett's claims and closed the case with prejudice. It concluded that Nieves had probable cause to make the arrest that disallowed Bartlett to make a retaliatory arrest claim, as established in 42 U.S.C. §1983 related to civil action for deprivation of rights. Bartlett took the case to the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court. There, the three-judge panel agreed with the District Court's ruling except on the false arrest charge. [2] The judges argued that Bartlett's claimed quote from Nieves could be read that Nieves had arrested him for not willingly speaking to him earlier, which put into question the probable cause. [2] The Ninth Circuit thus ruled that even if Nieves had probable cause, Bartlett could seek a retaliatory arrest claim based on his First Amendment rights. [3]

That created a split decision in the Circuit Courts. The Supreme Court had heard the case of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach , which had been brought up through the Eleventh Circuit. It found that the existence of probable cause in one's arrest voided any retaliatory arrest claims that could be made. The Supreme Court reversed that decision but primarily because of Riveria Beach's specific laws in question that appeared to be designed harass the civilian, not on the broader question of how probable cause and retaliatory arrest claims interacted.

The Supreme Court had ruled in Hartman v. Moore that to be able to claim on retaliatory prosecution, the onus was on the prosecuted person to prove that there was no probable causes that could be assigned by the prosecutors, judges, and juries. [4] The Nieves case is recognized as a legally similar but somewhat different situation from Hartman since instead of having to question the results from prolonged legal evaluation, Nieves questions the on-the-spot judgement call made by an officer. [3]

Supreme Court

Nieves and Weight petitioned for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in February 2018, and the Court accepted the case, with oral hearings given on November 26, 2018. Observers to the oral hearing found the Justices concerned on how to develop a proper standard to determine when an arrest can be considered retaliatory; Justice Samuel Alito considered that it would be difficult to set a metric between two extreme cases: that of a man yelling at an officer in a heated setting, and that of a person critical of their local government being arrested on a minor traffic violation. [5]

Opinion of the Court

The Court issued its decision on May 28, 2019, reversing and remanding the Ninth Circuit's decision. The 6–3 decision, [6] with only Justice Sotomayor fully dissenting, determined that in general, the presence of a probable cause for an arrest defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. [7] The court additionally held by a more narrow margin that there are some narrow exceptions to this. Because officers can exercise their discretion in making arrests for warrantless misdemeanor crimes, a plaintiff can succeed on a Section 1983 claim if they can present objective evidence that other similarly situated individuals who were not engaged in protected speech had not been arrested. [8] [9] This finding was supported by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh with Justice Thomas dissenting from this section of the opinion. [10] In his partial concurrence, Justice Gorsuch agreed with the majority that "the absence of probable cause is not an absolute requirement of such a claim and its presence is not an absolute defense. [11] Ginsburg opined that she would have reversed the lower decision and would have avoided using this case to establish a rigid rule that may chill free speech, but agreed that probable cause alone is not sufficient to defeat a retaliatory arrest claim. [12]

Sotomayor's dissent

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor, like Ginsburg, agreed with the majority judgement that probable cause alone cannot defeat a retaliatory arrest claim, but argues that the majority opinion threatens to produce arbitrary results and allow even clear cut cases of abuse. Her main point of dissent was that the majority opinion "fetishizes one specific type of motive evidence—treatment of comparators—at the expense of other modes of proof." [13] The majority opinion she contends would allow for officers to openly state their unconstitutional motives but be immune from litigation in the absence of comparative evidence, providing a number of hypothetical and historic examples of such conduct that would be permissible under the majority opinion. She points to literature on unconstitutional race-based selective prosecution and notes how difficult it is for plaintiffs in that case to provide comparative evidence of the type the majority decision now requires. The danger in this, she argues, is that it threatens to produce the same effects as the absolute threshold the court rejected.

She agrees with Ginsburg that existing precedent is the right course to take. The standard Sotomayor presents is that the plaintiff bears responsibility to show that "unconstitutional animus" was a motivating factor in the arrest and that the burden then shifts to the defendant who must show that they would have taken the action regardless of any reason to retaliate. [14] [15] Gorsuch suggested an evidential standard for clear and convincing of a prohibited purpose which she critiques but refrains from rejecting outright. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

"Contempt of cop" is law enforcement jargon in the United States for behavior by people toward law enforcement officers that the officers perceive as disrespectful or insufficiently deferential to their authority. It is a play on the phrase contempt of court, and is not an actual offense. The phrase is associated with unlawful arbitrary arrest and detention of individuals, often for expressing or exercising rights guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution. Contempt of cop is often discussed in connection to police misconduct such as use of excessive force or even police brutality as a reaction to perceived disrespectful behavior rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the US Supreme Court involving search and seizure. At issue was whether the Fourth Amendment's motor vehicle exception permits a police officer uninvited and without a warrant to enter private property, approach a house, and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house that is otherwise visible from off the property. In an 8–1 judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that the automobile exception does not apply to vehicles parked within the home or the curtilage of a private homeowner.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Montana courts lacked personal jurisdiction over a railroad that was not incorporated in Montana and did not have its principal place of business in Montana, even though the railroad had more than 2,000 miles of track and 2,000 employees within Montana. It was the first Supreme Court case argued before a Court that included newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.

Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are "separate sovereigns". Terance Martez Gamble was prosecuted under both state and then federal laws for possessing a gun while being a felon. His argument that doing so was double jeopardy was found unpersuasive due to the exception. In June 2019, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision 7–2, with the majority opinion stating that there was not sufficient cause for overturning the dual sovereignty doctrine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down seven per curiam opinions during its 2018 term, which began October 1, 2018, and concluded October 6, 2019.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant."

Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes applies regardless of whether a defendant has waived the right to appeal.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the mere existence of probable cause for an arrest did not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but deferred consideration of the broader question of when it might. The case concerned a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit filed against Riviera Beach by Fane Lozman, who had been arrested while criticizing local politicians during the public comments section of a City Council meeting. The city argued that under Hartman v. Moore he could not sue for retaliation, as they had probable cause to arrest him for the offense of disturbing a lawful assembly. Lozman conceded that they had probable cause, but argued that Hartman, a case about retaliatory prosecutions, did not extend to retaliatory arrests, and that instead Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle allowed his suit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2019 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2019 term, which began October 7, 2019 and concluded October 4, 2020.

Mont v. United States, No. 17-8995, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the proper interpretation of "supervised release" under 18 U.S.C. §3624(e). The case involved a prisoner who was convicted on drug distribution charges and was sentenced to imprisonment and supervised release. While on supervised release, he was charged and pleaded guilty to various state-law offenses, but due to administrative delays, his sentence was not entered until after the day on which his supervised release was to end. He was nonetheless charged with violating the terms of his supervised release, and he sought to challenge the court's jurisdiction to hear the case, arguing that his pretrial detention for the later offenses. The question in the case was whether a term of supervised release for one event can be tolled (paused) by imprisonment for another offense.

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of class arbitration proceedings. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and held that arbitration on a classwide basis could not be compelled based on the provision’s ambiguous language. The Court relied on its previous decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp. which held that class arbitration procedures could not be compelled without indication that the parties to the arbitration had agreed to these procedures.

Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case based on what constitutes a "seizure" in the context of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in the immediate case, in the situation where law enforcement had attempted to use physical force to stop a suspect but failed to do so. The Court ruled in a 5–3 decision that the use of physical force with the intent to restrain a person, even if that fails to restrain the person, is considered a seizure.

A retaliatory arrest or retaliatory prosecution is an arrest or prosecution undertaken in retaliation for a person's exercise of their civil rights. It is a form of prosecutorial misconduct.

References

  1. ↑ Nieves v. Bartlett,No. 17-1174 , 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019).
  2. 1 2 Bartlett v. Nieves, 712F. App'x613 ( 9th Cir. 2017).
  3. 1 2 Epps, Garrett (November 26, 2018). "Can Police Retaliate Against Loudmouths?". The Atlantic . Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  4. ↑ Hartman v. Moore , 547 U.S. 250 (2006).
  5. ↑ Liptak, Adam (November 26, 2018). "Supreme Court Considers a Thorny Question of Free Speech and Police Power". The New York Times . Retrieved November 27, 2018.
  6. ↑ "Nieves v. Bartlett". SCOTUSblog. May 31, 2019. Retrieved May 31, 2019.
  7. ↑ "Supreme Court rules against Alaska man in free speech case". Associated Press. May 28, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  8. ↑ Nieves v. Bartlett, 587USC___ , Syllabus 2-3(Supreme CourtMay 28, 2019).
  9. ↑ Frazelle, Brian (May 31, 2019). "The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for Police to Arrest You for Filming Them". Slate . Retrieved May 31, 2019.
  10. ↑ Nieves v. Bartlett, 587USC___ , Syllabus 3, Opinion 13-5(Supreme CourtMay 28, 2019).
  11. ↑ Nieves v. Bartlett, 587USC___ , Gorsuch, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part at 9(Supreme CourtMay 28, 2019).
  12. ↑ Nieves v. Bartlett, 587USC___ , Ginsburg, J. concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part at 2(Supreme CourtMay 28, 2019).
  13. ↑ Nieves v. Bartlett, 587USC___ , Sotomayor, J. dissenting at 8(Supreme CourtMay 28, 2019).
  14. ↑ Nieves v. Bartlett, 587USC___ , Sotomayor, J. dissenting at 14,(Supreme CourtMay 28, 2019).
  15. ↑ Nieves v. Bartlett, 587USC___ , Ginsburg, J. concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part at 2(Supreme CourtMay 28, 2019).
  16. ↑ Nieves v. Bartlett, 587USC___ , Sotomayor, J. dissenting at 13(Supreme CourtMay 28, 2019).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.