Defending Constitutional Rights

Defending your constitutional rights, is what this country is about. Deeming an item of the United States Constitution unconstitutional may seem to many as an impossible task, however in this land of the free and home of the brave, we aim to make sure that whatever Constitutional stone the framers left unturned has been or will be adhered to and interpreted accordingly. Although a law may read the same on paper, the interpretation of that law may have different meanings (broad or narrow) depending on the particulars of the situation. Despite the misconceptions people may feel are incorporated into the U.S. Constitution or the framers’ intent, judicially the Supreme Court will always be the deciding entity; which is the dilemma in the case
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and renowned essayist is a libertarian who is commended by other officials for his “common sense” decisions. Giving the dissent in this case, the Chief Justice waged that there was no constitutional violation and the Ninth Circuit Court did not agree with the allegation of excessive force, therefore reversing the finding of the lower district court to reflect in favor of the officers who were granted qualified immunity. In the Chief Justice’s opinion and despite her condition, Ms. Brooks was given ample warnings and time to get out of the vehicle on her own accord. However Ms. Brooks refused to cooperate with the extremities of this traffic stop. She displayed nothing but defiance and disrespect towards the state law and the law enforcement. According to Chief Justice Kozinski, the officers could have chosen any number of forceful restraints such as physical choke holds, dangerous gases, pepper sprays or even police dogs, when it came to getting her out of the vehicle and bringing the situation under control. Chief Justice Kozinski was also concerned with the possibilities of what could have happened by the car keys laying on the floor in front of her, possibly making her a flight risk and a threat to all if she chose to flee the scene. So considering the circumstances from every angle and in lieu of what extremities could have resulted from the other
In other words, was the violation alleged against them sufficiently clear and did any of their other colleagues or superiors see the officers as being in violation of the motorists’ constitutional rights.(Hence the blue code of ethics) The officers never questioned their method or the force behind the method used to subdue the seven month pregnant Ms. Brooks, however it seemed as if their major concern was a bureaucratic way out. It almost appeared as if the officers realized this action was a little on the extreme side. Needless to say, the claim of excessive use of force became irrelevant in this case. The officers prevailed when the Ninth Circuit Court held that they would be granted their immunity because the laws surrounding the use of tasers were not clear and concise at the time of this incident. Ms. Brooks did not prove that her Constitutional Rights had been violated by the city of