Kevin Byrd v. Ray Lamb (Absolute immunity case, eh)

Great Debates
1

The basics:

Kevin Byrd received notice that his ex-GF, the mother of this son, had been in a very bad car accident. He drove to the hospital to see her and then drove to the bar where she and her current BF has been the night before.

While in the parking lot, a man approached his car with a gun drawn and threatened him, telling him to exit the car or he would be shot. Mr. Byrd refused. The gunman attempted to break the driver’s side window with his gun but failed to do so. A round was ejected. He then attempted to shoot Mr. Byrd, but the gun jammed.

Mr. Byrd had by now called 911. The police arrived to the standoff and promptly arrested Mr. Byrd.

After reviewing the security footage, they released Mr. Byrd and arrested the other man, Ray Lamb, whose son had been the other party in the accident involving the ex-GF.

Except that Mr. Lamb is also Homeland Security Agent Lamb, and an appeals court says that as a federal officer he is immune to all lawsuits and prosecution.

Hence the seeking of certiorari from the SCOTUS.

IMO, this is a no-brainer. Agent Lamb was not acting in his official capacities and was not performing any valid governmental functions. A functioning democratic society cannot allow tens of thousands of citizens to be free of all legal constraints and accountability.

Somehow, tho, I doubt this will be as cut-and-dried as I’d like and I doubt the decision will satisfy me.

What say you, Dopers?

Links:

Here’s a fairly good altho concise news article:

Here’s a recent under-5-minute video about the cert filing, which includes the video of the incident:

Here’s the actual petition:

2

Bleorgh

3

The linked article says that criminal charges were dropped but it doesn’t say why. Is there a reason the criminal charges weren’t pursued? (The immunity case relates to a civil lawsuit.)

4

At least reading the Fifth Circuit opinion in the news article, this case isn’t about “absolute immunity” at all. And it certainly doesn’t stand for the principle that Lamb is “immune to all lawsuits and prosecution.” And it doesn’t suggest that he is " free of all legal constraints and accountability."

It’s about the appropriate extension of a particular cause of action (a Bivens claim) that creates a private right of action against federal officers for certain constitutional violations.

I mean, I agree it’s a “no-brainer.” If “Agent Lamb was not acting in his official capacities and was not performing any valid governmental functions,” it’s difficult to imagine how his behavior would rise to a constitutional violation. If he was acting in a purely private capacity, it would be strange if – simply by virtue of his day job – his private conduct took on constitutional implications. But, then again, the appeals case wasn’t really about that either.

5

That’s the way I read this case as well. It is not that Lamb is “immune” from suit because he is a federal agent. Lamb may be sued as a private citizen for everything he did. What Byrd wants to do is use the unrelated fact that his day job is as federal agent to shoehorn his claim into a constitutional Bivens violation so as to get access to a larger pot of insurance money that could pay damages.

What the courts are trying to determine is if this sort of thing is proper, and I agree with you that it is not. What Lamb did had nothing to do with his status as a federal agent, nor did it have the blessing of an explicit or implied policy of the federal government. Lamb simply committed a common law tort related to his personal business on his own personal time, and whether he was a federal agent, a plumber, or an insurance salesman has nothing to do with it, so therefore the Constitution is not implicated.