Read on Twitter
SCOTUS has been no friend to victims of police choke holds in their search for accountability. In 1976, Adolph Lyons, a 24-yr-old black man, was stopped by the LAPD during a traffic stop. Officers put him in a chokehold until he blacked out. He woke up spitting blood and gasping.
/2 In 1983, SCOTUS ruled 5-4 decision against Lyons, insulating the LAPD from an injunction, finding it unbelievable that African Americans faced a higher risk of such dangerous encounters with the police. Justice White was joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, & O'Connor.
/3 The majority found it "surely no more than speculation to assert ... that Lyons himself will again be involved in one of those unfortunate instances."
/4 In Justice Marshall dissented, noting that in a 5-year span the LAPD officers had applied chokeholds 975 times. Though a victim could still sue for $$, Marshall said, "The federal judicial power is now limited to levying a toll for such a systematic constitutional violation."
/5 In other words, Marshall was saying that the Court's ruling allowed police to choke now, pay later.
/6 Such a remedial regime could not possibly deter unconstitutional uses of force by police officers, esp. when you add to the picture: (1) a victim must overcome qualified immunity afforded individual officers; and (2) they are indemnified by the government.
/7 Without the ability of average victims to get an injunction, settlements and verdicts would have to be so gigantic and consistent against a jurisdiction that they would overcome other incentives to engage in the illegal use of force or keep dangerous officers employed.
/8 In a way, SCOTUS has helped create conditions in which only massive protests can do any good in changing the culture and practices of a police department--especially when a particular administration may be reluctant to interfere with police (e.g., Sessions, Barr).
/9 Put another way: Those who spend a great deal of time working on this issue try to come up with creative ways to overcome the reality that a certain degree of police brutality is simply absorbed as a cost of doing business.
/10 Check out the excellent work of @monicacbell, especially this article, which articulates the problem of "legal estrangement," a different, cultural way of thinking of policing reform than the more dominant "legitimacy" approach. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/essay/police-reform-and-the-dismantling-of-legal-estrangement
