CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS

By now, surely most people in the United States are aware of the shooting incident that occurred in Minneapolis, Minnesota on January 7, 2026. A federal police officer shot a woman, with an apparent intent to kill her, in the course of an incident where she intentionally obstructed his fellow police officers from carrying out their police assignment at the time. The woman died of her gunshot wounds. Does the United States Constitution address this incident?

It does. It contains the following principle of law:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .

U.S. Const., Amendment IV. Undoubtedly, shooting and killing a suspected law violator, before she can escape an imminent arrest, can be “reasonable” under certain circumstances. For example, few would question the police killing of an active shooter who appears intent to continue shooting. But many people would question the reasonableness of the police killing of an obviously non-violent protestor who is merely getting in another police officer’s way. The Fourth Amendment, together with the Fifth Amendment, require that any disputes over these specific facts, and over the ultimate issue of the participants’ “reasonableness,” be resolved by “due process of law” before a neutral judge, and if requested, a neutral jury. See U.S. Const., Amendments V and VII.  

The Trump Administration’s claims of police “immunity” from that process would, if allowed to prevail, reduce the 4^th, 5^th, and 7th Amendments to dead letters. The Constitutional responsibility of every member of the Trump Administration with regard to this incident is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” See U.S. Const., Art. II, §3. Those “Laws” include the 4^th, 5^th, and 7^th Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Trump Administration’s obstruction of “due process” with regard to this shooting incident is itself a gross violation of the United States Constitution. Trump, Vance, Bondi, and Patel are each violating their oaths of office to “support” the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const., Art.VI.

/s/ Dan D. Rhea