Excessive Force Case at High Court

March 20, 2001 -- As veterinarian Elliot M. Katz sat in the front row waiting to hear remarks by then-Vice President Al Gore in 1994, he had no idea he'd end up in the back of a police van before the speech's end.

He also couldn't have known the events of that day would land him at the center of a case being watched closely by police forces nationwide. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court considers Katz's case, which will clarify when police officers can be sued for excessive force.

At the center of the case is a Sept. 24, 1994, event in San Francisco celebrating the conversion of the Presidio Army base into a national park. Before Gore's speech, Katz sat in a public seating area separated from the stage by a waist-high cyclone fence. The 60-year-old president of a group called In Defense of Animals also wore a visible knee-high leg brace because of a broken foot.

The Presidio's transition was the subject of much public controversy because of animal experiments taking place at a hospital on the Presidio grounds.

Banner Unfurling Leads to Arrest

Pvt. Donald Saucier, working as a military police officer, had been told by his superiors that demonstrations would not be allowed because the Presidio was still technically a military installation. Katz was pointed out to Saucier as one of the potential activists to be watched.

As Gore began speaking, Katz silently removed a cloth banner from his jacket bearing the phrase "Please Keep Animal Torture Out of Our National Parks."

But before Katz could unfurl the banner, Saucier and Army Sgt. Steven Parker grabbed him from behind and tore the banner away, according to court documents.

Although Katz did not try to prevent them from taking the banner, he alleges the officers took him by the arms and violently threw him inside a military van.

After tossing another IDA member into the van, the officers searched and handcuffed Katz and drove the activists to a military police station. After being briefly detained, Katz was released.

According to court documents, Katz was never informed why he was detained or cited with any violation of any law or regulation.

A Question of 'Reasonable'

Katz and the IDA filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court alleging violations of the activist's 1st Amendment right to free speech and 4th Amendment protection from arrest without probable cause and with excessive force.

But Saucier and other officers won the first court battle after claiming a common defense for police officers in such situations: qualified immunity. Police officers who get sued for violating an individual's constitutional rights cannot be sued in civil court if the law is unclear or of they have reason to believe their conduct was lawful.

The 1st Amendment and false arrest claims were dismissed on these grounds, but the district court allowed the excessive force claim to go trial.

"A question of fact" existed as to whether a reasonable officer could have believed Saucier's use of force was lawful, the district judge concluded, therefore precluding the immunity claim. A jury should hear Katz's 4th Amendment claim, the judge said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court decision, saying the test for deciding whether Katz's claim can go to trial is whether the use of force was reasonable, the same test that a jury later would use in deciding the case.

Arguing for Saucier, Justice Department lawyers have said the courts should defer to the "split-second decisions" by officers on the street.

Now, it's up to the nation's highest court to decide.

A decision in the case, Donald Saucier vs. Elliot M. Katz and In Defense of Animals, is expected by July.