Site Navigation

LEGAL BRIEFS

Two back-to-back rulings confirm a new Supreme Court direction that officers can be personally liable for new and outrageous forms of misconduct. First, in Taylor v. Riojas, the Court reversed a lower court's ruling granting qualified immunity. Trent Taylor was left in jail naked for six days in unsanitary conditions. The Court found that "any reasonable officer should have realized that Taylor's conditions of confinement offended the Constitution." Previously, qualified immunity was only denied when there had been an earlier court opinion on a factually similar offense so the officer should have known it was unconstitutional. Second, in McCoy v. Alamu, the Court also reversed a lower court's ruling granting qualified immunity based also on the belief that a "reasonable officer" should have known their action offended the Constitution, even though there had not been a court ruling on a factually similar offense. In this case, a prison guard pepper sprayed Prince McCoy, Jr., an inmate in the cell next to the person the guard knew was responsible for throwing water on him. Following these rulings, we can expect many more cases to successfully challenge the qualified immunity doctrine.

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled in January in the case Oregon v. Pittman that a court can order a defendant to unlock their cell phone or face contempt charges (Portland Tribune, January 28). Catrice Cherelle Pittman was arrested after crashing her car in 2016; officers said she was under the influence, found drugs and cash, and asked her to unlock her phone. A court ordered her to comply, but she deliberately entered the wrong code. The Supreme Court said if there is a search warrant for the contents of a cell phone and the prosecutor has proven ownership, the court can order the owner to unlock the phone. The Court concluded that unlocking a cell phone is not self- incriminating because it is a compelled action and not compelled testimony. The example given is that the court cannot force a defendant to write a statement describing a tattoo but the court can force a defendant to stand up in court and reveal the tattoo to the jury. The Court also concluded unlocking a cell phone is akin to providing a key to a safe and does not require the defendant to self-incriminate. However, since there is a lot more on your phone than would be in a safe-- such as contacts, emails, videos and pictures, it is more like giving away the keys to all of your filing cabinets, your house, your car, your safe deposit box and your diary.

May, 2021
Also in PPR #83

Portland Copwatch
PO Box 42456
Portland, OR 97242
(503) 236-3065/ Incident Report Line (503) 321-5120
e-mail: copwatch@portlandcopwatch.org

Portland Copwatch is a grassroots, volunteer organization promoting police accountability through citizen action.

People's Police Report #83 Table of Contents
Back to Portland Copwatch home page
Peace and Justice Works home page
Back to top