ຕຳຫຼວດລັດ Arkansas ຜູ້ທີ່ຂົ່ມຂູ່ຈະຂ້າແມ່ທີ່ບໍລິສຸດ ປະເຊີນກັບສິ່ງທ້າທາຍທາງກົດໝາຍໃໝ່

An Arkansas police officer who received legal immunity after holding two innocent boys at gunpoint and pulling a Taser on their mother when she tried to deescalate the situation now faces a new legal challenge. The excessive force lawsuit brought by the boys’ mother, Cassi Pollreis, marks the latest flashpoint over “qualified immunity,” a controversial legal shield that “has become the first line of defense for cops and others who wantonly violate people’s constitutional rights,” according to Institute for Justice Attorney Keith Neely, who represents Cassi.

On January 8, 2018, Cassi was watching the College Football Playoff National Championship with her family at her parents’ house in Springdale, Arkansas. At halftime, Cassi drove back home with her husband and daughters, while her two sons, Weston and Hayden, wanted to walk the short distance home. 

But just a few blocks away, Officer Lamont Marzolf was on the lookout for two fugitives. Dispatch reported that the suspects were two Hispanic men wearing hoodies, one taller than the other. 

Almost immediately after Marzolf received that bulletin, Weston and Hayden walked into view. Then 14, Weston was indeed taller than his 12-year-old brother. 

Other details, however, made it abundantly clear Weston and Hayden were not fugitives. First and foremost were the blatantly obvious differences in age and race between the descriptions of the fleeing adult suspects and the two boys.

Nor were Weston and Hayden out of breath, even though dispatch said the suspected men were quite literally on the run. Finally, instead of running away when they saw a policeman, the two boys were walking ຕໍ່ Marzolf and the blue flashing lights from his squad car. 

Nevertheless, Marzolf left his squad car, drew his firearm, and pointed his gun at the boys, ordering them to lay down on the ground. Both boys quickly complied. 

Cassi soon appeared and stepped closer to the officer. She calmly tried to explain that those boys were her sons.

Marzolf shouted, “Get back!”

“Are you serious?” asked a now dumbfounded Cassi.

“I am serious.” 

Marzolf quickly pointed a Taser at Cassi; his right hand was still clasping his gun, still trained on the boys. 

Faced with a dual-wielding cop, Cassi was forced to move back. It was a “very intense moment as a parent, not being able to do anything,” Cassi would later recall.

For almost three more excruciating minutes, Marzolf continued to aim his firearm at the two boys. Another officer then arrived and helped Marzolf handcuff Weston and Hayden. 

Soon more and more members of both the Springdale Police Department and Cassi’s family began to gather. Finally, police released Weston and Hayden after confirming that neither boy was a wanted Hispanic gang member.

After letting the two boys go, Marzolf entered his car, closed the door, and let out a very audible sigh: “Dumb.”

On behalf of both her boys and herself, Cassi sued, arguing that Marzolf violated their Fourth Amendment rights. Marzolf responded that he was entitled to qualified immunity. This legal doctrine shields government officers from any civil liability, unless they violated a “clearly established” right.  

In 2020, a federal district court handed down a mixed ruling. The judge denied qualified immunity for the boys’ claims, but that decision was overturned on appeal by the Eighth Circuit. Late last month, the Supreme Court refused to hear the boys’ case. 

But the lawsuit over Cassi is still in play, and is currently on appeal in the Eighth Circuit. The 2020 district court ruling sided with Marzolf and held that threatening Cassi with a Taser did not violate any of her clearly established rights. 

“It is true that the Eighth Circuit has developed its case law regarding the threatened use of ປືນ,” wrote Judge Timothy Brooks, “but there have been no such developments surrounding the threatened use of tasers.”

But as the Institute for Justice countered in its appeal, “qualified immunity cannot shield Officer Marzolf simply because the weapon that he drew was a taser and not a gun.” Distinguishing between weapons shows a “inappropriately crabbed understanding of the clearly established test,” which in turn “runs contrary” to precedent in both the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court.

Just last year, the Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit decision that granted qualified immunity to a prison guard accused of pepper spraying an inmate “for no reason,” a decision that effectively hinged on the guard wielding “pepper spray instead of a fist, taser, or baton.”

Back in 2009, the Eighth Circuit rejected qualified immunity for a Minnesota officer who tasered a woman over an open bottle violation. Since the woman “posed at most a minimal safety threat” and was not “actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee,” the court was “not convinced that [the officer’s] use of force was objectively reasonable.” 

And for nearly 40 years, the Eighth Circuit has held that even a “relatively minor” use of force could be unconstitutional when it sided with a South Dakota couple who claimed an officer “threateningly raised a flashlight” against the husband. 

The parallels for Cassi’s case are clear. Since Cassi also was not a criminal suspect nor did she pose a threat, threatening to tase her violated her constitutional rights. 

“Cassi is a quintessential innocent bystander,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Anya Bidwell. “Police do not get to randomly point weapons at Americans for no reason. We’re hopeful the Eighth Circuit will see this case for what it is—an out-of-control officer who used his authority to terrify an innocent family.”