US high court backs police in ‘excessive force’ case

WASHINGTON: A day after Californians protested the latest police shooting of an unarmed black man, the US Supreme Court signalled Monday that law enforcement officers are generally protected against accusations of excessive force.

The court rejected arguments that an Arizona officer had broken the law in 2010 when he shot and wounded a woman standing in her driveway holding a kitchen knife.

Amy Hughes, who testimony showed was far away from police officers and did not threaten them, accused them of violating her constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Echoing past rulings, the court sided with University of Arizona police officer Andrew Kisela, ruling that he enjoyed, as part of his job, ‘qualified immunity’ in the case.

But two of the nine justices objected strongly to the decision, saying it ‘sends an alarming signal’ that police are usually protected against accusations of unjustified shootings.

Hughes was shot in May 2010 after three officers responded to a call of a person hacking on a tree with a large knife.

When they arrived, they saw Hughes, a woman who had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, carrying a kitchen knife, not pointing it at anyone but moving toward her roommate Sharon Chadwick.

Police, who were on the other side of a chain-link fence and so not threatened, shouted at Hughes to drop the knife. When she didn’t, Kisela shot her four times.

Hughes later sued Kisela for violating her rights, but the lower court sided with the police officer, ruling his actions were reasonable and protected by qualified immunity.

That was reversed in appeals court, where a judge said Kisela had no grounds to believe Hughes posed an imminent threat to anyone, and that no one had reported a crime. — AFP