5 Blocks AFF SWSDI 2016

01/03

Hansel Guzman-Soto

A/T: Cops need qualified Immunity in order to do their jobs

Qualified Immunity grants police officers to much legal defense
Schwartz M. (2013) [Martin Schwartz, Supreme Court Fortifies Qualified Immunity for Law
Enforcement Officers in Warrant Cases, NYSBA Municipal Lawyer | Winter/Spring 2013 | Vol. 27 | No. 1
http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1659&context=scholarlyworks] H.G.
To accomplish this goal, it is necessary, for starters, to identify several basic principles of Fourth Amendment and

Fourth Amendment claims challenging arrests,

searches, and uses of force by law enforcement officers are normally governed
by an objective reasonableness standard. For example, an officer has probable
cause for an arrest when based upon the facts and circumstances known to the
officer, a reasonably prudent person could have concluded that the suspect
committed or is committing a crime.6 Probable cause is essentially a reasonableness
standard.7 Similarly an officers use of force in carrying out an arrest or investigatory stop will
comport with the Fourth Amendment if, under all of the circumstance
facing the officer, it was objectively reasonable.8 Fourth Amendment objective
reasonableness standards give substantial deference to the judgment of
the law enforcement officer.9 Furthermore, an officer who violated the Fourth
Amendment because she [they] did not act in an objectively reasonable
manner may still escape personal liability under qualified immunity. This is so
qualified immunity law. Section 1983

even though the qualified immunity standard itself is one of objective reasonableness.10 Thus, a law enforcement
officer who violated the 1983 plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights will be shielded from liability unless those rights
were clearly established when the officer acted. Liability will attach only if the officer violated the plaintiffs clearly

a law enforcement officer sued under

1983 for violating the Fourth Amendment is effectively granted two levels of
reasonableness protection, one under the Fourth Amendment and another
under qualified immunity. To recover damages on a 1983 Fourth Amendment claim the plaintiff has
established Fourth Amendment rights. This means that

to overcome both levels of reasonableness protection. This is because an officer found to have acted unreasonably
for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment could nevertheless be found to have acted reasonably for the purpose of
qualified immunity.11 To avoid the linguistic awkwardness of an officer having acted reasonably unreasonably,
courts normally prefer different language, for example, that the officer had arguable probable cause, or made a
reasonable mistake, or used force at the hazy border of reasonable and unreasonable force.

A/T: Ban Qualified Immunity CP

1. Perm, first do the aff in order to get the benefits now and then later
do the CP in the future. This is better because we get a gradual
change in the law and dont disrupt society in any way. If we were to
outright ban a part of the constitution, this would cause mass
outburst. Also, they never tell you unique reasons as to why the CP
has to be passed now so their CP isnt mutually exclusive.
2. Dont let them get away by reading uniqueness evidence in the next
speech, theyve didnt so they cant go back and try to correct that
mistake. Doing so would be unfair because I only have 1 more
speech left to refute my opponent.

5 Cards AFF
02/03

SWSDI 2016
Hansel Guzman-Soto

A/T: Cops wont/dont abuse their position

Qualified Immunity incentives a culture of unchecked police

violence
Worthy S. (2016) [Sabrina S. Worthy, Failure to Prosecute Police Misconduct Breeds a Systematic
Tolerance
of
Police
Law
School
Student
Scholarship
Seton
Hall
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1847&context=student_scholarship] H.G.

Law

2016

There is disconnect between what the Supreme Court has affirmatively held and the objectively reasonableness

The root of the problem is the aftermath of the fatal shooting. The
unarmed suspect is dead and the family is left grieving in hope of
receiving justice. The problem is section 1983 acts solely as a remedy measure
for victims but it does not deter abusive police behavior. In cases where
the victims are awarded damages, it has no effect on police officers
whatsoever. The awarded money comes from the state and not the officers
own pocket.136 Furthermore, the expense of litigating the case is painless for
officers because it is covered by the city and a lawyer is appointed to their
defense.137 The lack of deterrence contributes to the growing amount of
cases of police brutality.138 Police officers with charges of excessive force
pending, hardly ever suffer any disciplinary action from the police
department. Despite allegations of excessive force, officers return back in
uniform and become repeated offenders. For instance, in the Rodney King trial two out of the
four officers had histories of using excessive force.139 Police officers use of excessive force
becomes a pattern of violence.140 Officers tend to believe they can get
away with it because there are no repercussions for their actions.141 In one
application.

disturbing case, former Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer Mark Fuhrman was recorded saying: I had
66 allegations of brutality . . . under color of authority, assault and battery . . . . Torture, all kinds of stuff . . . . Well,
they know I did it. They know damn well I did it. There's nothing they could do . . . . I mean, we could have
murdered people and got [sic] away with it. 142 Officer Fuhrman is known for his part in the OJ Simpson trial.
Fuhrman was charged with perjury for his testimony at trial. Fuhrman gave a taped interview in 1985 to Laura
McKinney, an aspiring screenwriter working on a screenplay about female police officers.143 The recorded tapes
became known as the Fuhrman tapes. McKinney asked Fuhrman, so you're allowed to just pick somebody up that
you think doesn't belong in an area and arrest him? He responded I don't know what the Supreme Court or the
Superior Court says, and I don't really give a shit ... if I was pushed into saying why I did it, I'd say suspicion of
burglary. I'd be able to correlate exactly what I said into a reasonable probable cause for arrest.144 This is
disturbing because he was able to get away with it.

No one questions the officers conduct

which reinforces the misconduct.

A/T: Generic CPs (oversight, replace them, etc. etc.)

1. Perm do both, their CP isnt mutually exclusive, you could literally add that on
to qualified immunity as well. Dont let them get away with saying that if the
CP net benefits outweigh the aff, then you should only do the AFF, you can
should do both solely on the basis that they didnt prove how it was mutually
exclusive. But even if you dont buy, doing both is greater change than doing
just one because we solve for multiple different abuses.
2. Perm do aff then neg, we could always pass the aff right now but then do the
neg later in the future. Them isnt a unique reason as to why we have to do it
immediately.
3. Perm do neg then aff, capture their offense and then afterwards pass the aff,
that way his offense is absorb by the aff. Also, there is probs no unique
reason as to why we cant pass the neg first before the aff.
5 AFF Blocks

SWSDI 2016

03/03

Hansel Guzman-Soto

A/T: Cops need qualified immunity in order to help minorities

Impoverished minorities are main targets for abuse of

Qualified Immunity - their position makes it easier for the poor
to face abuse
Worthy 16

[Sabrina S. Worthy, Failure to Prosecute Police Misconduct Breeds a Systematic Tolerance of

Police Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 2016 http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1847&context=student_scholarship] H.G.

the typical victim of excessive force is a young African-American

or Latino male, from a poor neighborhood, often with a criminal
record.145 Typically, the abuse occurs in urban areas where police officers
frequently patrol.146 The victims of police brutality do not make sympathetic plaintiffs; in fact some may
have a criminal record.147 This weakens the plaintiffs case because juries tend to
infer if the suspect was violent in the past it may be likely that the suspect
was violent on the day in question. Furthermore, because the police
misconduct occurs in poor neighborhoods, the witnesses are generally
friends, family or acquaintances of the victim.148 The witness credibility is
also attacked if witness shares a similar criminal history. 149 Sometimes, even
when the courts and juries are confronted with the actual footage of the
police misconduct they are still reluctant to find the officer guilty of
excessive force. The problem is that juries, everyday people, do not want to believe
that law enforcement, the same officer that has the duty to protect and
serve, is capable of killing an innocent, unarmed citizen. Too often, officers
can tell a scripted story how the suspect charged at them, reached for
their gun or thought the suspect was armed. This cycle remains unchecked
by the judicial system and police abuse continues to grow rapidly.
Generally,