Finger Pointing Defense Fails in High-Profile 1983 Lawsuit

 By John R. Byrne

A few years back, you may have read about--or seen pictures of--the injury suffered by a woman named Latoya Ratlieff. During a protest of the killing of George Floyd, Ratlieff was hit in the face by a "Direct Impact Round" (a projectile that seems akin to a rubber bullet but with a tear gas payload). 

Ratlieff brought 1983 claims against the City of Fort Lauderdale and the Fort Lauderdale police force. Judge Ruiz issued an order (which got picked up by the Herald last week) that rejected the officers' qualified immunity defense. Very detailed order on crowd control policies, riot control weapons, and how the police deviated from its own policies as well as third-party guidance on weapons use (e.g., the manufacturer of Direct Impact Rounds advises users to aim the rounds at areas below the belt and, on the day in question, a captain apparently told officers to aim for "center mass").

On the legal front, the opinion addressed the officers' qualified immunity defense. The officer who shot Ratlieff argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he was simply "following orders" and that it wasn't "clearly established" that, under the facts here, doing so could violate a person's First Amendment rights. The Court rejected the argument, and, in so doing, quoted an Eleventh Circuit opinion: "[S]ince World War II, the ‘just following orders’ defense has not occupied a respected position in our jurisprudence, and officers in such cases may be held liable under § 1983 if there is a ‘reason why any of them should question the validity of [an] order.’"

Good read.

Ratlieff Order by John Byrne on Scribd