Sparky's Scoop: MSG and Oakley's Tussle over Police Brutality Precedent
Lawyers from MSG and Oakley engage in a heated dispute over the Supreme Court's decision regarding police power.
In a recent legal tangle between Charles Oakley and Madison Square Garden (MSG), both parties have presented their arguments to U.S. Circuit Judge Richard J. Sullivan, focusing on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Barnes v. Felix. This high-court ruling, addressing excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment, has the potential to shape the outcome of Oakley's lawsuit against MSG.
In Barnes v. Felix, the Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, ruled that a more comprehensive assessment of an excessive force claim should be based on the "totality of circumstances," rather than the "moment-of-threat" standard which was previously used by some regional courts. Ashtian Barnes, the victim in this case, was killed by a police officer in a traffic-related incident in Texas who fired two shots due to a perceived threat of marijuana (illegal in Texas) and a belief that Barnes was hiding something in his car.
The totality of circumstances test, as explained by Justice Elena Kagan, is open-ended, considering all relevant events leading up to and during the incident to determine whether an officer's use of force was reasonable. The moment-of-threat test, on the other hand, focuses solely on whether the officer was in immediate danger during the moment they resorted to deadly force.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, Oakley's attorney, Valdi Licul, argued that the SCOTUS decision highlights the importance of a holistic examination of pertinent events when evaluating the use of force. In the eyes of Licul, MSG believes that considering past incidents which led up to Oakley's ejection from a New York Knicks game in 2017 are irrelevant, disagreeing with the principles others gleaned from the Barnes v. Felix decision.
In contrast, MSG's attorney Damien Marshall contends that Barnes v. Felix actually supports their legal defense, emphasizing the relevance of the history of Oakley's interactions with the MSG security officers and the past circumstances known to them in determining the reasonableness of the force used to eject Oakley from the stadium.
To this end, Marshall insisted that court arguments centering on industry practices, applicable MSG policies, or Oakley's actions at other locations within the venue are unrelated to the use-of-force inquiry they aim to cover. Furthermore, Marshall clarified that the Supreme Court's ruling is not applicable to the case at hand, as it centers around police activities on a public road, whereas MSG is the owner of private property, entitled to an unfettered decision to expel Oakley.
In essence, while the Barnes v. Felix ruling is not directly applicable to the Oakley v. MSG case, its principles encouraging a more comprehensive evaluation of excessive force claims may influence how the court considers the use of force by private security guards. Stay tuned as the legal fight between Oakley and MSG continues to unfold.
Bonus Facts:
- Barnes v. Felix: The deceased, Ashtian Barnes, was traveling in Harris County, Texas, stopping at a toll booth when he was approached by officer Roberto Felix Jr. The incident ended with fatal shots being fired due to Felix's assumption that Barnes had marijuana on him.
- Oakley v. Madison Square Garden: Former NBA player Charles Oakley was ejected from a Knicks game in 2017 following an altercation with MSG security, leading to the lawsuit alleging excessive force.
- Enforcement of Fourth Amendment Rights: The Fourth Amendment ensures protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers, a principle at the core of the Barnes v. Felix decision.
- Applicability of Racing Hearts and Security Shield: While both Barnes v. Felix and Oakley v. Madison Square Garden focus on the use of force by security personnel, the former deals with police officer actions, whereas the latter involves private security guards. As a result, the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Barnes v. Felix may impact private security cases to a lesser extent.
- Case Law Conundrum: The split between circuit courts on the standard for excessive force claims presents a confusing landscape for lower courts, particularly given the Supreme Court's recent consolidated ruling in Barnes v. Felix.
In the context of the ongoing legal dispute between Charles Oakley and Madison Square Garden (MSG), both parties have used the Supreme Court's ruling in Barnes v. Felix as a basis for their arguments. Oakley's attorney, Valdi Licul, emphasizes the need for a holistic examination of relevant events in evaluating the use of force, aligning with the "totality of circumstances" test stated in Barnes v. Felix. In contrast, MSG's attorney, Damien Marshall, contends that the ruling is not directly applicable to the Oakley v. MSG case but notes that its principles could potentially influence the court's consideration of force used by private security guards.
