Civil Rights/Civil Liberties

Are Courts Becoming More Willing to Review Excessive Force Claims?

Published on: June 29, 2015 | by Emma Quinn-Judge

Over the last few weeks, in the midst of our ongoing national discussion about law enforcement use of force, both the Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), in Kingsley v. Hendrickson and Commonwealth v. Asher, have joined the conversation with decisions reviewing use of force incidents. While these two recent cases are very different in that they address distinct areas of the law and distinct factual contexts for the use of force, they share at least one striking similarity: in both Kingsley and Asher, the high courts give no deference to claims by law enforcement officers that their use of force was reasonable. Instead –and in contrast to the many other decisions where courts have shown a troubling willingness to rationalize even the use of deadly force by law enforcement – these recent decisions suggest that in certain cases courts may now be willing to engage in a more careful review of law enforcement action.

In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, a decision issued Monday, June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court assessed what a pretrial detainee alleging that jail officers used excessive force against him would need to show to prove that the force used was unreasonable. Michael Kingsley was arrested in Wisconsin on a drug charge and detained in a county jail pre-trial. During his detention Kingsley refused multiple requests by officers to remove a piece of paper covering the light fixture above his bed. When officers eventually came to his cell to remove the paper, Kingsley refused to comply with their directions. He was removed from his cell, handcuffed, and placed face down on a bunk with his hands behind his back. An officer then placed his knee in Kingsley’s back. According to Kingsley, that officer and another officer slammed Kingsley’s head into the concrete bunk. (The officers denied this specific allegation.) All parties agree that Kingsley – who was still handcuffed with his face on a bunk – was then stunned with a taser to the back of the head for approximately 5 seconds.

Where is the line between teaching children independence and engaging in child endangerment and neglect?

Published on: April 16, 2015 | by Naomi Shatz

A number of recent news stories have demonstrated that around the country, parents and departments of child welfare are in disagreement about what activities are appropriate for children – and the states are taking steps to enforce seemingly draconian yet undefined rules on parents who leave their children unsupervised for any period of time. Last summer a South Carolina woman was arrested and her child was taken into state custody when she let her nine-year-old play alone in a park while the mother worked her shift at McDonald’s. Recently parents subscribing to a “free range parenting” philosophy were investigated and found responsible for unsubstantiated neglect after letting their ten and six-year-olds walk home from a park together. A few months later, the children were picked up a second time and a new investigation was opened.

Not surprisingly many states do not actually have laws to guide parents as to what the state considers appropriate versus neglectful parenting. Those that do have widely varying requirements. In California, for example, no child under 6 can be left alone unsupervised in a car, but only if the car is on, the keys are in the ignition, or when there are circumstances that present a risk to the child’s health and safety. In Hawaii no child under the age of 9 can be left unsupervised in a car for five minutes or longer. States also range dramatically in the age they give as law or guidance on when a child can be left home alone: Colorado recommends children not be left alone before they are 12, Kansas thinks they are ready at 6, and Illinois prohibits by law leaving children home alone until age 14. There don’t appear to be any rules or regulations about other independent activities children might engage in, although the cases in Maryland and South Carolina indicate that state agencies and courts might apply the laws relating to leaving children alone in homes and cars to letting children do other activities without supervision.

Free Speech, Trespass, and the Massachusetts SJC’s decision in Glovsky v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc.

Published on: October 31, 2014 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

The Supreme Judicial Court’s October 10, 2014 decision in Glovsky v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., is now the high-water mark in Massachusetts for the right to access private property, over the objection of the property owner, in order to fulfill a constitutional right. The decision addresses the right of a candidate for public office to solicit signatures for ballot access outside the entrance to a supermarket, but could have important implications for the exercise of free speech in Massachusetts. It also could have implications for certain criminal defendants; our firm has represented a defendant arrested for trespass when distributing literature or protesting on private property.

When a Roche Bros. employee told Steven Glovsky, a candidate for Governor’s Counsel, that the supermarket’s policy did not allow signature solicitation on its private property, preventing him from seeking signatures to get on the ballot, he proceeded to file suit. The SJC in Batchelder v. Allied Stores Int’l, Inc., 388 Mass. 83 (1983) (Batchelder I) previously upheld a candidate’s right under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights Article 9 to seek signatures in the common areas of a shopping mall, comparing the mall to traditional public fora like downtown areas. In Glovsky, the SJC went a step further, clarifying that whether or not a location is functionally equivalent to a traditional public forum, signature solicitation must be allowed if the interests of the candidate outweigh the interests of the property owner. The SJC found that Glovsky had a “substantial interest” in soliciting signatures on the sidewalk of the supermarket, which was the only one in town, and that allowing such solicitation would not unduly burden Roche Bros.’ property interests by, for example, disrupting its business. (Glovsky’s suit was still unsuccessful, however, because the SJC found that the supermarket had not violated the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.)