May
16

Your Constitutional Right To Dignity

Every day my office receives calls from folks who have been abused by people in positions of authority. Most of these people are angry enough to sue. We try to listen and determine what to do with their grievances. In most cases, there is little than can be done. Like it or not, there really is no constitutional right to dignity.

This is a harsh assessment of things. But it is true. What's more, the federal courts, where constitutional litigation gets its fullest hearing, are rapidly, and by design, becoming inaccessible to we the people. Most callers are sent away discouraged by our assessment of what justice can deliver.

Consider the following case: A man falls outside his home. Neighbors call 911 as the man stumbles back into his house. Police arrive. The man suffers a physical disability, and had left the house without a cane. He and his wife are embarrassed that the police arrive. The officer responding is imperious in demeanor, ordering the angry wife to step aside. Things escalate. The wife is arrested for interfering with a police officer; agitated and upset by the tension his home, the already frail man, who suffers psychiatric disabilities as well, collapses in panic. He is removed from the home by ambulance and is later held, against his will, for observation in a local hospital.

This entire episode might not have happened at all if the police officers responding to the home reacted with decency and consideration of the fact that however limited the residents may have been, they were in their own home. They expected to be treated with decency and dignity. The lead officer was overwhelmed that day. He reacted as bullies sometimes do.

Question: Can they bring a successful claim against the officer for unreasonable seizure and unreasonable entry into their home? Sadly, almost certainly not.

The law forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. But the federal courts have created so many doctrines and exceptions to the warrant requirement the police are increasingly free to do as they think fit in ever broader areas of life. Thus, in this case, officers responded to a 911 call by a presumably disinterested neighbor. When they arrived, they saw a man and woman in some distress. The officers mistook the shame and embarrassment for signs of a domestic violence incident. When they tried to investigate, the woman would not cooperate, so she was arrested. The man, fragile of psyche, became enraged and distraught. He was taken into custody because the officers feared he might be a danger to himself. All in a day's work for the police.

But the insult to the dignity of the homeowners is profound. The man is simply crippled and struggles against his limitations. His wife is exhausted caring for his needs. She worries that there is no one there to care for her when she is weary. The couple's exhaustion gives them few resources to meet the inevitable frustrations of the day.

Along comes Officer Attitude, responding, as many officers say, to another "bullshit domestic." He expresses disdain for the couple. If they'd only cooperate with him he could clear this call. He didn't become a police officer to play social worker for the socially infirm. The officer treats these people like garbage, and they sense it. They are mistreated in subtle ways in their own home by a man with a badge and gun.

This fact pattern, to use the language of lawyers, is by no means uncommon. I received an email recently complaining that a police officer behaved like a "racist and sexist." I have no doubt that the officer did. But what leaped to mind as I read this was case law holding that an officer's subjective motives and attitudes are irrelevant in evaluating whether his conduct was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It is such silly distinctions that clutter the law and make it look ridiculous.

Not long ago, I was in a settlement conference for an appeal I was taking in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one step from the United States Supreme Court. The settlement officer kept trying to direct my case back to the state courts. I had the sense that the federal courts did not want any longer to be bothered with a constitutional litigation by ordinary people seeking to vindicate their rights. When I shared that sense with a trial court judge weeks later, the judge agreed: The courts are becoming an oasis of privilege and wealth, choking all but the well-heeled with new rules, doctrines and practices all intended to promote justice but having the practical effect of making it all but impossible to try a case. We sat, this judge and I, and bemoaned the loss of a time when trial meant something in the federal courts.

I grieve when a caller reaches me and wants nothing so much a recognition of their worth and dignity as a person. The courts cannot deliver that. The cold logic of the law compresses complex fabric of life into simple skeins. Sadly, the law doesn't recognize the right to be treated with dignity by those in authority. That is what the law calls an aspirational goal, and not an enforceable right.

So what about your constitutional right to dignity? You don't have one. The law has become too sophisticated and supple to recognize this basic need. So much the worse for the law, and for all of us.
Comments (1)
Posted on May 16, 2010 at 4:25 am by William Doriss
"We do not hold our police officers to a standard ...
"We do not hold our police officers to a standard of perfection." That was told to me by Atty. Burton Weinstein, Bridgeport, when he graciously gave me a crash-course in CT state criminal law when preparing for my own kangaroo court trial in CT. No charge.

That is unfortunate. I am watching the National Police Officers' Memorial Services, being re-broadcast this morning on C-Span. Quite frankly, I find it a disgusting display of pomp and circumstance, a miasma of teary-eyed self-congratulation if ever there was one.

Law enforcement has become an easy and highly over-rated way of making a good living for many who, for whatever reason, will not or cannot make an honest living the old-fashioned way. When was the last time you saw a cop 'walking the beat'? Same with the firemen, who have been known to clash with arrogant police officers when responding to an identical call for service. Some of these people have forgotten the 'servant' in the term, 'public servant'. As a society, we have become extremely reluctant to hold law enforcement accountable for errors, corruption and acts of malfeasance.

Some of us have experienced this in our own lives, and have changed our outlook and opinions of law enforcement from one of respect to one of suspicion and disrespect. It seems we have become a society divided between officials who think they are essentially 'above the law', on the one hand, and the rest of citizenry which has become a happy hunting ground for those well-compensated officials to disrespect, tase/shoot, arrest, charge, try, convict and, finally, lock-up the least miscreant among us; those of us who are not officials or related to officials. Increasingly, these officials in uniform and in the judiciary and corrections hold arbitrary powers over us, about which we can do nothing. That is a prolix way of saying 'police state', about which we have been amply warned over the decades.

Complaints, civilian review get us nowhere. The state whitewashes everything.

I recently ran into the wife of a Mass. State Police Officer who confided in me that she and her husband had just bought a 1/2 million dollar vacation home on Cape Cod, which was to become their 'retirement home'. Good for her! I've seen and heard a lot, but was stunned. This never would have been possible 'back in the day'. I read in the news that it is routine in some jurisdiction for police officers to earn well over $100,000 per year. I find this unbelievable and outrageous, when so many of us are out of work and struggling to make poverty-level salaries and wages.

When police officers make--notice I did not say 'earn'--more than school teachers, and some attorneys I assume, I think there is something seriously wrong! I say, roll back the police state. Vet candidates for police work more carefully. Unfortunately, this line of work attracts some individuals who are essentially not suitable. Sadomasochistic, overly aggressive, and racist candidates, or candidates otherwise mentally unbalanced, need not apply for police work. That is affirmative!?!

Some police officers are actually illiterate. And if you do not believe me, read some of their 'reports'. Good Grief, Charlie Brown?!?
For Display:
What color is the sun?
Confidential:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved, then will show on this page.

x

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website

www.normpattis.com
www.normpattis.com

Law Firm Website

www.pattislawfirm.com
www.pattislawfirm.com

I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis

Disclaimer:

Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video