Saucier v. Katz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saucier v. Katz

Argued March 20, 2001
Decided June 18, 2001

Full case name:	DONALD SAUCIER, PETITIONER v. ELLIOT M. KATZ and IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS

Citations:	533 U.S. 194

Holding

Court membership

Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

Case opinions

Majority by: Kennedy
Joined by: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Souter (Parts I & II)
Concurrence by: Ginsburg
Joined by: Stevens and Breyer
Concurrence/dissent by: Souter

Laws applied

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered the qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action.

[edit] Background

In 1994, the Presidio Army Base in San Francisco, California was the site of an event to celebrate conversion of the base to a national park. Elliot Katz, the president of a group called In Defense of Animals, brought with him a cloth banner, approximately 4 by 3 feet, that read "Please Keep Animal Torture Out of Our National Parks," to voice opposition to the possibility that the Army's Letterman Hospital might be used for experiments on animals.

While Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. began giving a speech, Katz removed the banner from his jacket, started to unfold it, and walked toward the fence and speakers' platform. Petitioner Donald Saucier, a military police officer who was on duty that day, had been warned by his superiors of the possibility of demonstrations, and respondent had been identified as a potential protestor. He and Sergeant Steven Parker, another a military police officer, moved to intercept Katz as he walked toward the fence. As Katz reached the barrier and began placing the banner on the other side, the officers grabbed respondent from behind, took the banner, and rushed him out of the area. Saucier and Parker took respondent to a nearby military van, where, respondent claims, he was shoved or thrown inside.

Katz brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against petitioner and other officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), alleging, that defendants had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to arrest him.

The Supreme Court in an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy held that Saucier was entitled to qualified immunity.