4th Circuit To Cops: Arresting Someone For Following Your Instructions Means You Don’t Get Any Immunity
No matter how you might feel about constitutional rights or which ones are your favorites, the fact remains that it's often people with the least amount of cultural cachet and/or the most to lose who make the best case law.
And so it is here, where we're dealing with a sex offender who tried to follow both the letter and spirit of the law just to find himself arrested by the same people who defined the letter of the law for him.
However you may feel about sex offenders (and keep in mind this list includes teens who sexted other teens), there's no denying they're subject to some very extreme restrictions. These restrictions make it almost impossible for them to find housing. They certainly make it impossible for them to find anything but the worst forms of employment. And, in many states, paying for your crimes with jail time means nothing. Offenders (and not even those suspected to be prone to re-offending) are saddled with years - if not decades - of work/life restrictions that far surpass those handed to people convicted of violent crimes.
But, as long as offenders comply with these restrictions, they can continue whatever's left of their lives in (very restricted) freedom. But the rules are complex, subject to change, and subject to broad interpretation by the government employees tasked with enforcing them.
This decision [PDF], issued by the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court, calls out cops for actions one usually expects from corrupt government employees doing the bidding of their totalitarian masters. The US is - at least until the next presidential election - still a democratic republic. The sorts of things detailed here simply should not be happening. (h/t Short Circuit)
North Carolina resident David Thurston sued after he was pretty much railroaded by local law enforcement officers who arrested him for (supposedly) violating his sex offender registration requirements. Thurston pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a minor charges in 1992. He served his time in Montana. He moved to North Carolina more than thirty years later, in 2015. He contacted Sheriff Kevin Frye and Deputy Lee Buchanan to make sure he complied with his new home's offender registration requirements.
He complied with the state's restrictions. A year after moving to North Carolina, Thurston contacted the sheriff to inform him he was planning to attend his nephew's wedding in Spokane, Washington the following month. He asked for guidance on how to handle this temporary exit from the state, as well as what he needed to do to ensure compliance during this visit as well as after his return from the wedding.
Sheriff Frye was understanding, even if he wasn't all that much help.
After they exchanged texts, Sheriff Frye told Thurston on August 11 that he could [g]o on" because the Sheriff's Office was working on it." All Thurston needed to do, Sheriff Frye explained, was email a copy of Thurston's Washington visitor-registration form within ten days of his arrival.
Having seemingly been given permission to attend this wedding and stay in Washington until he decided to return to North Carolina, Thurston left town. But his trip was immediately interrupted by Sheriff Frye, who now seemed a bit more concerned with keeping tabs on Thurston's whereabouts. He asked Thurston for the address where he would be staying and to contact him after he arrived in Washington. Thurston immediately provided the address and promised to reach out after his arrival.
Once in Washington, Thurston contacted local law enforcement to register as a visitor" in order to remain in compliance with his sex offender obligations. Thurston stayed in Spokane for the next month, during which he made a couple of trips to Seattle to visit a friend.
The sheriff and his office should have known Thurston was still in Washington. But they either forgot about the trip he had informed them about or simply didn't care. Either way, the deputy charged with handling sex offenders began making things worse for Thurston, who was still in full compliance with the Sheriff's demands and North Carolina law.
On September 9, while Thurston was away, the Sheriff's Office mailed his verification form. Thurston's sister, who lived with him in North Carolina, told him about the form, prompting Thurston to contact Sheriff Frye for guidance. But Sheriff Frye never responded, so Thurston decided to let it lie," given their prior interactions.
The Sheriff's Office, however, did not let it lie." Instead, Deputy Buchanan began investigating Thurston. Three times after Thurston's September 12 verification deadline, Deputy Buchanan stopped by Thurston's residence. Of course, Thurston was not there.
Roughly six weeks after his arrival in Spokane, the Spokane Sheriff's Department contacted Thurston to inform him that (North Carolina) deputy Lee Buchanan was looking for him." Thurston called Deputy Buchanan, who told him his absence" was causing problems back home." The deputy also (incorrectly) informed Thurston that it was illegal" for him to be out of the state for more than 30 days. Then the deputy said this:
[I]n the same breath, [Deputy Buchanan] also said that he had spoken with Sheriff Frye and had decided that, as long as Thurston was back in North Carolina by October 19, there would be no problem."
Thurston returned on October 19th. It didn't matter, at least not to Deputy Buchanan.
Even so, Deputy Buchanan discussed potential criminal liability with an assistant district attorney, who recommended that Deputy Buchanan pursue charges against Thurston. And on October 19-knowing that he and Sheriff Frye had given Thurston until that day to return to the state-Deputy Buchanan obtained a warrant from a local magistrate alleging three different criminal violations committed from September 19 to October 18: (1) being out of state for thirty (30) + days," (2) willfully failing to return his verification, and (3) willfully failing to report in person to the Sheriff's Office.
And the trap was set. Thurston went to the Avery County Sheriff's Office (completely unprompted by law enforcement visits or calls) to deliver his verification form. In return for this, he was arrested. The charges were later dropped, with the prosecutor explaining it away as a misunderstanding with regard to how to comply with technical requirements."
Well, the only misunderstanding" was on the part of Deputy Buchanan, who managed to misunderstand" direct communications with his sheriff so poorly (whether deliberately or not) that he had a man arrested for doing exactly what he had been instructed to do both by Sheriff Frye and Deputy Buchanan.
That dog won't hunt, says the Fourth Circuit. It cites the lower court's findings, which it upholds here:
Deputy Buchanan and Sheriff Frye therefore needed some reason to believe that Thurston either purposefully violated the law or acted with some other improper purpose. But the district court's order forecloses any argument that they believed this. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Thurston, the district court accepted that both defendants definitely knew that . . . Thurston was eager to comply with the law." And the district court accepted that the officers knew that Sheriff Frye gave Thurston permission to travel and that Thurston followed every instruction the Sheriff's Office gave him. In so concluding, the district court not only accepted the facts alleged about Thurston's actions but also accepted that the officers had concluded, based on those actions, that Thurston was eager to comply with the law throughout his sojourn.
This sort of ruling means nothing if it's not followed by a denial of qualified immunity. After all, officers are free to violate rights so long as they can credibly (lol) argue their clear violations of established rights were different enough from standing case law they could not have possibly known their actions were unconstitutional (even if it's immediately obvious to everyone else). That doesn't work here because (1) the rights violation is pretty fucking obvious and (2) the circuit has some precedent that aligns with the current case.
In this case, it's the Fourth Circuit's 2012 Merchant v. Bauer decision, which involved an officer seeking a search warrant to arrest someone for impersonating an officer. The court held then that the warrant was void and unconstitutional because the officer applying for it was in possession of knowledge that would have exonerated the suspect of the proposed criminal charge.
It's the same thing here:
In other words, we held that knowledge of sufficiently exculpatory information trumps the inculpatory evidence of the warrant. So too here. The district court found that Sheriff Frye and Deputy Buchanan knew that Thurston was not acting willfully and thus could not satisfy each element of the relevant crimes, yet they sought a warrant and arrested him anyway. After Merchant, no reasonable officer could believe that an arrest in such circumstances was lawful.
If it's not reasonable," it's not constitutional. And since the standard is reasonable officer" rather than regular American," reasonableness is the operative factor, even when most reasonable non-cops would clearly understand that arresting someone for following specific instructions issued by law enforcement officers is a violation of that person's rights. There's no new precedent here. But at least there's another affirmation that trying to arrest someone for following the law is so far out of the range of reasonable," no officer can expect to be immunized for their blatant constitutional violations.