Saucier v. Katz

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Saucier v. Katz
ArgueDate=March 20
ArgueYear=2001
DecideDate=June 18
DecideYear=2001
FullName=Donald Saucier, Petitioner
v.
Elliot M. Katz and In Defense Of Animals
OralArgument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_1977/argument/
USVol=533
USPage=194
Citation=121 S.Ct. 2151; 150 L.Ed.2d 272
Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Subsequent=
Holding=A qualified immunity ruling requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making the arrest.
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Majority=Kennedy
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Souter (Parts I & II)
Concurrence=Ginsburg
JoinConcurrence=Stevens, Breyer
Concurrence/Dissent=Souter
Dissent=
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Saucier v. Katz", ussc|533|194|2001, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered the qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action.

Background

In 1994, the Presidio Army Base in San Francisco, California was the site of an event to celebrate conversion of the base to a national park. Elliot Katz, the president of a group called In Defense of Animals, brought with him a cloth banner, approximately 4 by 3 feet, that read "Please Keep Animal Torture Out of Our National Parks," to voice opposition to the possibility that the Army's Letterman Hospital might be used for experiments on animals.

While Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. began giving a speech, Katz removed the banner from his jacket, started to unfold it, and walked toward the fence and speakers' platform. Petitioner Donald Saucier, a military police officer who was on duty that day, had been warned by his superiors of the possibility of demonstrations, and respondent had been identified as a potential protestor. He and Sergeant Steven Parker, another a military police officer, moved to intercept Katz as he walked toward the fence. As Katz reached the barrier and began placing the banner on the other side, the officers grabbed respondent from behind, took the banner, and rushed him out of the area. Saucier and Parker took respondent to a nearby military van, where, respondent claims, he was shoved or thrown inside.

Katz brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against petitioner and other officials pursuant to "Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents", 403 U. S. 388 (1971), alleging, that defendants had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to arrest him.

The Supreme Court in an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy held that "Saucier" was entitled to qualified immunity.

In 2008, in an order granting certiorari in "Pearson v. Callahan", the Supreme Court asked the parties to brief and argue whether "Saucier" should be overruled.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 533

Further reading

*Cite journal |last=Sampsell-Jones |first=Ted |author-link= |year=2007 |title=Reviving "Saucier": Prospective Interpretations of Criminal Laws |periodical=George Mason Law Review |volume=14 |issue= |pages=725 |url=http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/subsites/gmulawreview/files/14-3/Documents/Sampsell-Jones.pdf |doi=