Supreme Court backs Secret Service arrest of man confronting Cheney

[villager]

Source: LA Times

Supreme Court backs Secret Service arrest of man confronting Cheney


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court shielded two Secret Service agents from being sued for having arrested a Colorado man who confronted former Vice President Dick Cheney on the street and said his “policies on Iraq are disgusting.”

The justices said citizens are not protected from a “retaliatory arrest” if police or federal agents have probable cause to take the person into custody.

In the Cheney case, a judge said the agents had reason to arrest Steven Howards, the protester, because he had bumped the vice president.

“This court has never recognized a First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause,” said Justice Clarence Thomas. Such a right was certainly not “clearly established at the time of Howards’ arrest,” he added.

Public officials are usually shielded from lawsuits for carrying out their duties unless they violate a constitutional right that is understood and “clearly established” in law.

The decision was unanimous, although Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer did not join Thomas’s opinion. They said they voted to shield the Secret Service agents because they had a duty to make “singularly swift, on the spot, decisions” to protect the lives of high officials.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-backs-secret-service-arrest-of-man-confronting-cheney-20120604,0,5913692.story

[FBaggins]

1. Pretty obvious that they could arrest him.

The only real question was whether or not he even had the ability to sue them.

[villager]

2. Glad to know you support retaliatory arrests....

n/t

[FBaggins]

4. Odd... I missed where I said that.

I have no opinion at all on the incident in question because I don't remember anything at all about it... but it's a simple fact that abuse of authority does not mean that the authority doesn't exist.

[villager]

7. I didn't. It was in your agreement with the verdict. If you read the SC's rationale for said verdict

n/t

[FBaggins]

10. You mean the unanimous verdict?

If you read the SC's rationale for said verdict

You mean like where Justice Ginsburg said that you can't infer retaliatory animus from the arrest?

Even the majority opinion didn't say that retaliatory arrests are ok (despite the poor reporting in the OP). What they did say was that officers have qualified immunity from personal responsibility for an arrest unless there was an already clearly-established court precedent defining such a right. They didn't rule that no such right exists, only that there was no existing clearly-established precedent that the officers were bound by.

[villager]

13. Sadly, I also noted it was unanimous.

Who watches the Watchmen, indeed...

[cstanleytech]

12. Ginsburg and Breyer voted with the others so do you claim that they support retaliatory arrests?

[Kelvin Mace]

3. No surprise here

What was never addressed was did he IN FACT "bump" Cheney. That finding would have made this ruling justified or unjustified. What makes this utter nonsense is this statement:

“This court has never recognized a First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause,” said Justice Clarence Thomas. Such a right was certainly not “clearly established at the time of Howards’ arrest,” he added.

In my view, any "retaliatory arrest" should be illegal. Either a person is arrested with probably cause, or they were not. Thomas specifically carves out a new arrest parameter (retaliatory arrest) and declares it legal as long as some "probable cause" is supplied LATER.

It began on June 16, 2006 when Steven Howards spotted Cheney emerging from a shopping mall in Beaver Creek, Colo., and chatting amiably with several persons. Howards approached the vice president and allegedly pushed or touched him on the shoulder as he voiced his criticism.
Nothing happened immediately, but Gus Reichle, a Secret Service coordinator on the scene, heard about the incident from other agents. He then confronted Howards, accused him of an assault and ordered his arrest.

Howards was detained for several hours and released. No charges were filed against him.

No charges were filed.

NO CHARGES WERE FILED.

The decision to arrest was made long after the incident took place, and there was plenty of time for reflection on whether an actual assault occurred.

The man was arrested for daring to criticize Cheney.

So now, "retaliatory arrest" is now legal.

Again, why do people think I am crazy when I state that we live in a de facto police state?

[elleng]

8. FACTS:

A Secret Service agent assigned to protect the vice president said he heard a man standing nearby say into a cellphone that he planned to ask Mr. Cheney “how many kids he’s killed today.” The man, Steven Howards, later approached Mr. Cheney and said the administration’s “policies in Iraq are disgusting.”

Mr. Howards also touched Mr. Cheney on the shoulder. Mr. Howards said the gesture was an openhanded pat. Secret Service agents described it as a forceful push. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the dispute over the manner of the touch “does not affect our analysis.”

One agent, Virgil D. Reichle, later confronted Mr. Howards and asked him if he had assaulted the vice president. Mr. Howards falsely denied having touched Mr. Cheney and said, “If you don’t want other people sharing their opinions, you should have him avoid public places.”

Mr. Reichle arrested Mr. Howards for assault and turned him over to the local authorities. He was charged with harassment under state law, but those charges were dropped.

Mr. Howards sued, saying the arrest had violated his First Amendment rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/secret-service-agents-cant-be-sued-justices-rule.html?hp

[Kelvin Mace]

11. You pretty much confirm my point

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the dispute over the manner of the touch “does not affect our analysis.

As he was NEVER charged, the veracity of the assault claim has never been substantiated.

Thomas, then talks about "retaliatory arrest", and enshrines it in law.

The justices said citizens are not protected from a “retaliatory arrest” if police or federal agents have probable cause to take the person into custody.

"Probable cause" was established AFTER the fact. I am quite sure that Cheney's SS detail would have reacted at the time of the incident if there had been an ACTUAL assault, and the man would have been arrested on the spot.

In essence, Thomas is saying, "Fuck the facts of whether a crime was committed, people can be arrested in retaliation for legal behaviour as long as some pretext is presented ex post facto

.

[villager]

14. +1

n/t

[elleng]

18. This matter is NOT ABOUT PROBABLE CAUSE,

it is about a right to sue the Secret Service.
AND he WAS charged, LATER dismissed.
AND its not merely 'Thomas is saying,' its the COURT's decision.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. No, Thomas made that clear

as he created the right of the government to engage in "retaliatory arrests", his words, not mine.

And to quote from the story:

Howards was detained for several hours and released. No charges were filed against him.

Could you cite your source that he WAS charged?

Thomas WROTE the decision and the vote was 9-0, with 7 justices concurring, and two simply voting with the majority.

This IS about a new power being granted to law enforcement to arrest people for engaging in legal activities.

[elleng]

25. 'One agent,

Virgil D. Reichle, later confronted Mr. Howards and asked him if he had assaulted the vice president. Mr. Howards falsely denied having touched Mr. Cheney and said, “If you don’t want other people sharing their opinions, you should have him avoid public places.”

Mr. Reichle arrested Mr. Howards for assault and turned him over to the local authorities. He was charged with harassment under state law, but those charges were dropped.

Mr. Howards sued, saying the arrest had violated his First Amendment rights. A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit allowed the case to proceed.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/secret-service-agents-cant-be-sued-justices-rule.html?hpw

[Kelvin Mace]

39. OK, now we have conflicting accounts

As the matter never came to court, no one was compelled to testify UNDER OATH about any pertinent facts, so this is hearsay. How can anyone say he "falsely denied" anything when no evidence has ever been presented in a court of law UNDER OATH?

Again:

1) The USSS agents on the scene at the time apparently saw NOTHING which constituted assault committed in front of them since, if they had, they would have taken the man down there and then. If you assault the vice-president of the United States in front of his security detail, you WILL BE TAKEN DOWN RIGHT THERE.

2) Significantly after the fact, a USSS supervisor decided that a "retaliatory arrest" was in order, and the Thomas Court upheld this new power 9-0.

[Canuckistanian]

37. Yup, that confirms it

"Retaliatory arrest" is now a valid concept in American law.

To Hell with the 4th Amendment.

This is such a sad turn of legal events.

[NutmegYankee]

38. The probable cause was established before the arrest.

The agent confronted the man with the accusation and arrested him based on a possible assault (actually battery). Arrests have always been conducted with the weak standard of probable cause. However, as happened in this case, the case would not be provable in court.

The point of this decision is you are protected from a retaliatory arrest only when no probable cause is present. This would be the same as a False Arrest Tort.

[Kelvin Mace]

40. There should be know such thing

as "retaliatory arrest".

Either you have probable cause to arrest someone, or you do not.

The security detail apparently saw NOTHING that looked like assault to them, so they left the guy alone. An agent later decides (having not witnessed the event) that probable cause does exist, and arrests the guy, but either did, or did not file charges, depending on the source you read.

Regardless, the Thomas court just established "retaliatory arrest" as a legitimate practice.

[NutmegYankee]

45. They did not.

The problem is the court could not show that there wasn't probable cause supporting the arrest. No matter what accusations abound about retaliation or not, probable cause is all that is required for an arrest. If there had been no alleged contact, and the man was arrested for just expressing disapproval of Cheney, then that would be a clear cut case of False Arrest (retaliatory arrest is a type of false arrest).

[Kelvin Mace]

51. Thomas deliberately ignored the fact

that the USSS detail with Cheney saw no action at the time of the "assault" which warranted an arrest. The decision to arrest was made ex post facto. There was no "snap decision" that the USSS had to make, erring on the side of caution due to Cheney's safety. They made the arrest in retaliation for the man expressing his opinion, and Thomas just legalized it by saying they can do that, as long as they invent some "probable cause".

Based on this criteria, it would have been permissible to come back and shoot the man, and justify the shooting by saying "Upon reflection, even though we saw no weapon, we thought he might have had one, so we went back and shot him. We have since determined this is not the case, so we will drop the charges. Please don't let his man sue us, we had to make a snap decision.

The Thomas Court says. "Cool!"

[NutmegYankee]

55. Your example lacks a hold on reality.

The Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled that the arrest was lawful, supported by probable cause. That's it in a nutshell. To claim that it was in retaliation for his words is both difficult to prove and insufficient to justify suing the agent as he had acted lawfully in his arrest of Mr. Howards. Howards should not have made physical contact with Cheney.

If Howards had been arrested with no probable cause, then he would have a case for "retaliatory arrest", which is indistinguishable from "false arrest".

[wordpix]

27. "allegedly pushed or touched him on the shoulder" ---which was it?

and we "allegedly" also had WMD in Iraq.

[24601]

32. If in fact he touched the VP, the 1st amendment does not protect it. Not even

speech is an absolute right.

But I remember from class also that physical contact isn't necessary to prove assault, merely a physical action that causes someone to react as in a flinch. The contact which usually follows the assault is more often categorized as battery.

[elleng]

35. Right all around, 246.

AND as to speech being an absolute right, we know its not because one can be charged (civilly) for slander and pornography and other things.

Physical contact would be BATTERY, and ASSAULT usually precedes it. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault+and+Battery

There's no doubt, apparently, that he did touch the guy (uck), and he then denied that he had done so.

[Kelvin Mace]

41. If such an assault and/or battery occurred

why didn't the security detail present arrest him? Logic would indicate that these professional law enforcement officers apparently saw nothing that warranted arrest at the time of the incident.

If he had been arrested at the time of the "assault" the USSS would have credibility. Instead it was after the fact, and "retaliatory arrest" is now enshrined in law.

[cstanleytech]

15. No charges being filed doesnt mean they dont have grounds techincally for an arrest.

That aside I would be interesting in learning exactly how long after the incident did Reichle learn about it since after all you are making it your main reason for objecting to the arrest.
And no, I am not a Cheney fan or defender and if I had the power I would turn his ass over to Hague.

[Kelvin Mace]

24. This situation would not stink

if the USSS arrested the man at the time of the incident.

Instead, the agents on the scene did not see anything which constituted assault in their eyes, so they did NOT arrest or even detain the man. Later, after a supervisor heard about the incident, he got pissed off and decided to arrest the guy for pissing him off, not for assaulting Cheney.

The court just legalized this.

[cstanleytech]

28. The way I am reading (and I could be mistaken)

is the reason the court largely ruled the way that they did including Ginsberg is so as to leave intact the ability for law enforcement agencies to react, the ruling however doesnt appear to grant them immunity from beating a suspect, planting evidence or any other violation of the constitution.

[elleng]

31. Maybe,

and NOTHING to do with immunity from beating etc, as you say.
Will be discussed on Newshour tonight.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. Hmmmm

"...the ruling however doesnt appear to grant them immunity from beating a suspect, planting evidence or any other violation of the constitution. "

Guantanamo prisoners would beg to differ. This is already perfectly legal.

[cstanleytech]

46. Wasnt that ruling based around the whole "they arent citizens so they have no rights" excuse? If so

I dont believe Gitmo is relevant to this specific case which is about some guy being arrested for allegedly bumping Cheney.

[Kelvin Mace]

50. The assertion was made that we still have

Constitutional rights protecting us from summary arrest, abuse and execution. This is simply not true. A person, citizen or not, may be declared an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist" and arrested, tortured or murdered out of hand.

In some states, a woman wishing to have an abortion, a legal procedure, must be raped by proxy at the state's command.

Thomas' ruling is just another exception which has rendered the Bill of Rights null and void. Our rights have suffered death by a thousand exceptions.

[cstanleytech]

57. Actually the court hasnt ruled on that aspect yet for US citizens if your refering to

that recent (and badly written imo) law that was passed with a veto proof majority, same for the recent abortion and (again imo) overly restrictive laws some of the states have passed in that the court will have to make the call on it.

[Kelvin Mace]

44. The USSS clearly had an opportunity and right

to "react", but the agents on the scene who witnessed the altercation saw nothing which would warrant arrest in their professional judgement.

All the ruling seems to have done is create a new pretext for arresting law-abiding citizens as long it can be justified with window dressing.

[cstanleytech]

47. You can be arrested pretty easy already if a police officer is determined enough to do so the ruling

doesnt appear imo to create anything new really, it just lets the police have the room to make the snap decisions when and if they need to but it doesnt appear to protect them from breaking the law themselves by violating your constitutional rights, if they do that you are still free to sue their pants off.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. But there was no "snap decision"

in this circumstance. If the USSS had made the "snap decision" to arrest the guy when he "assaulted" Cheney, it would not be an issue. They would have the letter of the law on their side.

What has been done here is to codify "retaliatory arrest" as legal.

[cstanleytech]

56. I dont recall it specifying the time though but thats not the point which was the court

Last edited Tue Jun 5, 2012, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)

was afraid it would hamper efforts for the police to react on arresting someone when they had possible cause and bumping someone on purpose in order to confront them (which is what seems to have happened here) is cause enough.
Now if say he was arrested say after he went home them ya I would completely agree with you but that just didnt happen.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

5. In a perfect world

Cheney would have the same fate as Adolph Eichmann. Kidnapped, taken to Iraq, put on trial for war crimes and hanged.
But it's an imperfect world and I agree with Bader-Ginsburg and Breyer.

[cstanleytech]

17. Nah, in a perfect world he would never have been born. nt

[crunch60]

29. In a perfect world, lightning will strike Cheney's battery pack

that is pumping his blood supply, that keeps his sorry ass alive. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in his "WMD" declared war. POS

[cstanleytech]

30. This isnt a perfect world though :( nt

[coalition_unwilling]

21. Equating Cheney to Eichmann is somewhat ahistorical. Cheney is more akin to

Herman Goring, head of the Luftwaffe and nominal head of state when the Nazi regime finally surrendered, whereas John Yoo or another lesser technocrat represents a more appropriate analogue to Eichmann. (Eichmann served in the RSHA under Reinhard Heydrich.)

Hope I did not trigger Godwin's Law in clarifying the historical record.

Back to regular programming.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

34. I think

you misunderstood my post, perhaps I worded it poorly. I did not say Cheney committed the same crimes as Eichmann, but that he deserved Eichmann's fate. Goring killed himself, we know Cheney will try to live forever.

[coalition_unwilling]

36. Well, I'm an opponent of capital punishment, even for the darkest of rodents, so

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you about what Cheney 'deserves'. I think we can both easily agree that Cheney deserves to be on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I appreciate your clarification. Goring killed himself in captivity rather than face certain execution, but Cheney walks around a free man. All because we need to look forward and not backward.

That was the beginning of the winter of my discontent with Mr. Obama.

[Kelvin Mace]

43. Sadly, I must agree with

as I too oppose the death penalty. There is no predator drone hunting Cheney, which would at least be poetically just.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

52. I'm not a fan of capital

punishment either....that's why I want the Iraqis to do it. Perhaps proponents of government sponsored murders would change their minds if one of their own was hanged?????

I don't believe President Obama has the temperament to take on the GOP in the way it needs to be taken on. But I don't know that there is anyone out there who does. I am so thoroughly disgusted by the spinelessness of Democrats I have made myself a solemn promise. If Romney wins the WH and the GOP remains in control of the house and gains a small majority in the senate, then proceeds to keep the tax cuts in place, renege on the Defense budgets cuts and finally seek an increase in the debt ceiling and Democrats support that increase, I will not ever again vote for or donate to any national Democratic candidate. I swore off Republicans 20 years ago...so I guess I'll go Green.

[coalition_unwilling]

54. Russ Feingold would have taken them on, as would Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner. But the

current crop of national Dems for 2016 and points beyond does not inspire a whole hell of a lot of confidence.

On a positive note, I don't believe Romney can or will win the WH, barring some extraordinary turn of events. The electoral college is stacked against him and Obama's campaign team are too good to get beaten.

[24601]

33. Believe you misunderstand the authority of a VP. Not a deputy commander in

chief and not in the chain of command between a President and department heads.

The VP has 2 duties - preside over the Senate and check the WP headline daily to determine the health of the President.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

53. Believe you misunderstand

the influence of Cheney as VP.... And let's not forget Eichmann claimed to be a drone, not the queen.

[24601]

58. Eichmann was in charge of others. VPs have only their personal staffs. And the

Holocaust stands out unparalleled in history - implications that the situations are in any way shape or form even remotely equivalent are highly offensive.

For all the faults of the Bush administration, they never pursued genocide.

[elleng]

6. BAD headline from LATimes.

THIS is what the case and decision is about:

Secret Service Agents Can’t Be Sued, Justices Rule.

[lookingfortruth]

9. Listen carefully Can you hearing the Founding Father's scream from their graves at the outrageous

way the First Amendment is being treated like toilet paper.

[Hubert Flottz]

16. Guys like Cheney are above the law and

protected by the secret Corporate Government, of The "United" Snakes of America. That is all...

[lookingfortruth]

19. Let's just face it this Deomcracy is a fraud. It has been the United States for the Corporations of

America AND we are serfs who had been laboring under the dillusion we have a voice.

[bluestateguy]

20. I disagree with the ruling, but very well

Next time some teabagger mouths off at President Obama, the Secret Service will have him arrested.

[coalition_unwilling]

22. It will be just as wrong then as it was in this case. But I know

where you're coming from.

[cstanleytech]

48. Its not the mouthing off that will land you into jail or atleast

it wont as long as it doesnt include any threats towards the president, its the bumping into him and or trying to get physical with him that could cause that to happen.

[wordpix]

26. "he had bumped the vice president." Really? He "bumped" Cheney? What does that mean?

Was that how Cheney described it? Usually someone pushes someone, or assaults, hits or punches. But "bump?"

I'd like to know more about this "bump."