## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2676 J OS EP H F I NCH, D AVI D E. H ENS LEY, an d P ETER W. M UNG OVAN, P la intif fs-A pp ellees, v. B ART P E T E R S ON, i nd i v i du a l l y a nd inh is offic ial c ap ac ity , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:08- cv-0432- DML-RLY

—Debra McVicker Lynch, Magistrate Judg e.
A RGUED D ECE MBE R 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 10, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, W I L L I A MS, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Thi s inter l ocuto ry a p p ealar i ses fro m a c om pla i nt fi l ed aga i nst the Ci ty ofInd i anapol i s, its law -en for c em en t M er it B o a r d , a n d se ve n cit y off icia ls al l egingv i o l a t i o ns o fT i t l e V I Io fthe Ci v i l R i g ht s Ac to f 1964 , 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 1, a nd 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 3. The pl aintiffs

— thre e white p ol i ce l i eutenants

— claim they w ere su bj ecte d to reverse d iscrim ination be cau se th ey w ere passed o verf orpro m oti on t o the r ank o fcaptain des pit e2 N o. 09

- 2676

On J anu ar y 1 , 20 07, the I ndi ana pol i s Pol i c e Dep art m en t 1 wa s c o n s o l i da t e d wi th th e l a w- e n f o r c e me n t di v i s i o n o ft he M ario n C ou nty Sh eriff’ s D ep artm en t to form the In d ian ap olis M et ro pol i t an Pol i c e Depar t m en t
. Forp u rp ose s ofthi s opi ni on, “P olice D ep ar tm en t” refers b oth to the cu rren t Ind ian ap olis M etr opo li tan Poli ce D epartm ent and the previous I nd ianap olis Po lice D ep artm en t. ra nking hi ghero n the Police Departm ent’ s pro m oti on e l i g ib i l i t y l i s ttha n thr e e Afr i c a n- Am e r i c a n l i e ut e nants w ho were prom ote d ahe ad o fthem

. The i nd i vi du alci ty o ffi ci al s m o ve d f o r j udg m en t o n th e pl ea di ng s, c l ai m i ng quali fied i m m unity b ase d on the ter m s o fa 1978 conse nt decr ee enter ed into bythe I nd i anapol i s Po l i ce Dep ar tm ent a nd the U ni ted S tat es Dep ar tm ent of J usti ce ( “DO J ”)
. They m ai ntai ned that the c onsent decre e re q u ire d th em to m ak e t h e p ro m ot ion s a t is su e h e re . A m ag i st r at e j udg e d i sa g r ee d a nd de ni ed th e m o ti o n, a nd the c i t y o ffi c i a l s a pp e a l e d. W e a ffi rm . The 1 97 8 consent decree does noto perat e to c onfer qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyo n the c i tyo ffi ci al s who w er e invo l ved i n m aking the chal l enged pro m oti ons. N othi ng i n that decree r equi re d them to ta ke ra ce into consi derat i on in m aking pro m oti on s. To the co ntra ry, spe ci fi c l an g ua g e i n the de cr ee r equi r ed pr o m o ti o ns w ithin th e Police De p artm en t to be m ad e w ithou t regard to rac e o r c olo r.

I . B a c kg r o und I n De ce m be r 2 00 6 th e I ndi an apo l i s Po l i ce De par tment 1 pr o mo t e d 1 1 o f i t s l i e u t e n a n t s t o th e me r i t r a n ko fc a p-N o. 09

- 2676 3

T he com p lain t is silent a s to w ho receiv ed the elev en th 2 pro m ot i on. The seven i nd ividual de fe nd a nt s a re: Bart Pet ers on, the f orm er 3 m ayor ofIndianapolis ; M ic hael Spears, Chiefofthe Poli ce Depar t m en t ; Fr ank Ander s on, a m em ber of the “T rans i t i on Auth or i t y” thate xe rc i s ed co nt ro l ove r the Pol i c e Depar t m en t du ri ng it s rec ent consol idati on; M onroe G ray, J r. , another m em b er o f the T ran sition A u tho rity ; an d C or d elia B u rk s, M ary M a x w e l l , an d J osep h S m ith, J r., m em b ers of the M erit B o a rd for th e M et ro p o lit a n L a w E n fo rc em en t A g en cy . ta i n. In mak i ngthe se pr o m o ti ons, the Po l i ce De par tment re l i ed on a co m peti ti ve proce ss w hereby appli c an ts f or prom oti on were s c reened, gr aded on the basi s o fa prom o ti o ns e xa m , and the n ra nk ed o n an “e l i g ibi l i tyl i st
. ” The top seve n l i eutenants on the el i gibi l i ty l i st all re cei ved prom oti ons to captai n. Li eutenants Davi d H en sley, J o seph F i nc h, a nd Pe te r M ung o va n o cc upi ed th e ne xt th r ee s po ts o n the e l igibi l i tyl i st( number s 8- 10 ) , y etno ne o fthe se men wer e pr o m o te d. Ins te ad, th re e Afr i ca nA m er i can l i eutenants wh o ra nked 12th, 17th , and 26th o n th e e l i g ib i l i t y l i s tw e r e p r o mo t e d a h e a d o fth e m. 2 Aft err ec ei vinga Not i ce o fRi gh t t o Sue , the thr ee l i eu te n an ts br ou gh t t h is s u it a lleg in g t h at th e C i t y o f Ind ian ap ol i s a nd i ts l aw - enf or cem ent M er i t Boar d vi ol ate d Ti tl e VI I, a nd th ats ev eni ndi vi dualc i tyo ffi ci al s who wer e i nv o l ve d in mak i ngthe se e m pl o y m en t dec i si o ns vi o l a t e d § 1 9 8 1 a nd § 1 9 8 3 b y de ny i ngthe m a p r om oti on t o c ap ta in so l el y o n the basi s o fthei r ra ce. The de- 3 fen dan ts move d f o r j udg m en t o n the pl ea di ng s pur su an t to R u le 12( c) o fthe Feder alRule s o fCi vi l P ro cedure base d4 N o. 09

- 2676

I n a c c o r da n c e wi th th e p r o v i s i o n s o f 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 6 3 6 ( c ) an d 4 R ule 73 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil P rocedure, the parti es c ons en t ed t o h ave a m agi s t ra t e j udge c onduc tal l pr oc ee di ngs in the cas e. In 2005 the D O J fil ed a m oti on to d is sol ve the conse nt decre e 5 on the gr ounds thati tha d ful fi l l ed i t s p ur pos e. In 200 8, af t erthe pro m ot i ons ati s s ue i n thi s c as e had alre ady be enm ade , the d istrict co u r t ap p ro v ed of a joint m otio n to d issolv e this co n se n t d ec re e. In s eparate li ti gati on the DO J broug ht su it a g ains t the Poli ce D epartm ent all eging that the D epartm ent had violat ed T it le V II b y m ak ing p ro m otio ns o n th e b asis o f rac e an d sex, citing in parti cular ( am ong other ex am ples ) the l ie utenants w ho are p lain tiffs in th is case as instan ces of rev erse d i sc rim ina tion in the D ep artm en t’ s pr om otio n d ecision s. T he P olice D ep artm ente nt er ed i nt o a nothe r c ons en tdec re e i n whi c h, without ad m itting an y liab ili t y , it ag reed to retro activ ely p ro m ote all ofthe al le g ed v ic ti m s, i ncluding the l ie utenants i n thi s cas e. Ins tead ofp u rs u ing re li efthr oug h thi s new cons ent decree, the lieuten an ts elected to p ro ceed w ith th is law suit. on the te rm s o fa 1978 c on sent degre e e nter ed i nto by the Po l i ce Depar tm ent a nd the DO J
. The co nsen t d ecr ee 4 se tt l ed l i ti gat i o n a l l eg i ngtha t th e Po l i ce De par tment h a d e n g a g e d i n a p a t t e r n o fr a c i a l l y d i s c r i mi n a t o r y e mp loy m en t p ra c tic es th at a d ve rs ely a ffec te d A fric an -A m er ic a n s . T h e d e c r e e w a s d e s i g n e d t o e l i min a t e th e d i s c r i mi natory e m plo ym ent pr acti ces and to re quir e the Pol i ce Dep ar tm ent t o tak e ce rt ai n affi rm ati ve re m ed i alm easu r es t o i m pr o ve the j o b pr o spe ct s o fAf r i ca n- Am er i ca ns i n the Pol i ce Depar tm ent. 5N o. 09

- 2676 5

The Ci t y ofI ndi ana pol i s an d the M er i tBoar d al s o s ought 6 j ud gm en t o n the pleadings bas ed on the t erm s ofthe 1978 c o n s e n td e c r e e . T h e d e n i a l o ft h e i r mo t i o n w a s n o ti mm ediate ly appealable. M or e s p ec ifica lly, th e c i t y offic ials cla im ed in t h eir m oti on that the 19 78 conse nt decr ee confer re d qu ali fi ed i m m uni tyfr o m su i t be ca us e i t effec ti ve l y mandat ed th e prom oti on deci si ons at i ssue he re. The m agi str ate j ud ge disa gr eed , c oncl ud i ng tha t the co nsent decree di d not requ ire

— or ev en p er m it

— the Po l i ce Depar tm ent t o m ake pro m oti ons base d on r ace. The j ud ge note d that al th o ug h the con se ntde cr ee s etr ec r ui tmenta nd hi r i ng goa l s forA fri can- A m er i can o ffi cer s, i t s peci fi cal l y s tat ed th at “[ p] r o m o ti o ns sh al l be ba se d upo n rel ev an t st an dar ds an d c rit er i a whi chwi l l b e appl i ed wi th o ut re gar d to ra ce o r col or . ” The j ud ge d en ied the Rule 12 ( c) m ot ion in it s e n tir et y, an d th e in d ivid u al c ity offi c i als a pp e a l e d. 6

I I . Discussi on W e ha ve j ur i sdi ct i o n un derthe c o l l at er al

- o r derdo ct r i ne to he ar th is ap p eal ch all en ging th e m agistrate ju d ge’s denia l o fthe i nd i vi du alci ty offi ci al s’ cl ai m o fqual i fi ed i m m uni ty
. In M it ch el l v. Fors yth , 472 U
. S. 511, 530 (1985 ), the S up re m e Cour t hel d that “ a di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f a cl ai m o fqual i fi ed i m m unity, to the ex te nt i t turns o n an iss u e o f l aw , i s a n ap p ea lab le ‘fin al d ec isio n ’ w ith in th e m ea ni ngo f2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 29 1 not wi th st an di ngthe ab se n c e o f a fin al jud gm en t.”6 N o. 09

- 2676 D istri ct-cou rt orders d en ying qu ali fi ed i m m un ity are re vie w ed d e n ov o. C a rvaja l v. D o m ing uez , 542 F. 3d 561, 56 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. B ecause thi s ca se c o m es t o us f o l l o wi ng th e den i alo fa Rul e 12 ( c) mot i o n fo r j ud gm en t o n the pl ea di ng s, we co ns true the a l l eg at i o ns i n the c o m pl aint i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the pl ai nti ff s, Buc hana nM oorev. County of

M i l wau k ee, 5 70 F.3d 82 4, 827 (7th Cir. 2009 ) , and asktw o questi ons: ( 1) Do the f acts al l ege d show that a co nsti tuti onalr i ght was vi ol ate d, and (2 ) was th e right in questi on s uffi ci entl y wel l es tabl i shed that a re aso nabl e o ffi cerwould have been aw ar e o fi t? Sa uc ier v. Katz , 53 3 U .S. 19 4 , 2 0 0 (2 00 1); Na rdu cci v . M o o re, 572 F. 3d 313, 318 ( 7th Cir. 2009). U nd er Pears on v. Cal l ahan , 129 S. Ct. 80 8, 81 2 ( 2009 ) , we need not consi der these questio n s sequenti al l y, but i n thi s ca se, i t m ake s s ense to do so

. I n denyi ng the d efendants’ cla i m o fqual i fi ed i m m unity, the m agi str ate j ud ge concl ud ed that the l i eutenants had adequatel y a l l ege d a vi ol ati on o f t hei r ri ght t o equal p rotection i n th eir em p loym e n t, th at th is r ight w as su ffi ci en tly wel l e st ab l i sh ed i n 2 00 6 when th e pr o m o ti o ns i n que st ion t oo k pl ace, and that the 1 978 conse nt decr ee did not re quir e the City to m ake prom oti ons base d o n r a c e . T he s e de t e r mi na t i o ns we r e s o un d. “R ac e- co ns ci o us e m pl o y m en t dec i si o ns made bythe state are presu m p tively un con stitut ional and w il l satisfy the requir em ents ofequalpro tect i on o nl y where they ar e co nsi ste nt with str i ct s crutiny. ” Alexand e rv. Ci ty of M ilw a uk ee, 474 F.3d 43 7, 44 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); see also Adar and Cons t r uc t ors , Inc . v. Pe na , 51 5 U.S
. 20 0, 22 7 ( 1995 )N o. 09

- 2676 7 ( “[ W ] e ho l d today that al l r aci alcl ass i fi cati ons, i m p ose d bywhat ev erfede r al, s ta te , o r l o ca l g o ve r nm en ta l a ctor, m us t be a na l yzed b y a r ev i ewi ngc o ur t unde r s tr i cts cr utin y.” ); City of Ric hm ond v. J
. A. Cr os on Co. , 488 U
. S. 469, 49 3- 94 ( 1989 ) ( hol ding th at the sta nd ar d ofr evi ew under th e Equa l Prote ct i o n Cl au se i s no t depe nde nto n the ra ce o ftho se burde n ed orbene fi tte d by a part i cul ar c l a s s i fi c a t i o n )
. T h e l i e u t e n a n t s a l l e g e d i n th e i r c o mpla i n t th at theywere passed o verforpro m oti on in f avo r o fthr ee b l ac kl i eu te nant s des pi te r an k i nghi g he r o n the P olic e Depart m ent’ s m er i t-base d “el i gibi l i ty l i st” than thos e who re c eiv ed pro m oti on. A r aci alcl ass i fi cati on havi ng be en identi fi ed, i t i s the defendants’ burden to prove thatthe cl ass i fi cati on s ati sfi es str i ct s crutiny, A lexa nd er, 474 F
. 3d at 444- 45, a b u rd en r ar el y c ar ri ed at th e pl ea di ng s st ag e. The l i eu te na nt s’ co m pl aintthus su ffi ci entlya l l eg es a c o ns ti tu ti o na l v i o l at i o n. As fo r the secon d i nq uiry, it i s w elles t a b lis he d un d er Cros on a nd Adar and that ra ci alcl ass i fi cati on s und er tak en bygo vernm en ta l o ffi ci al s ar e co ns ti tu ti o na ll y s us pec t an d subj ect to str i ct s crutiny. Id

. at44 6- 47. The c ity offi ci al s do not chal l enge thi s ba si c analysi s. They argu e ins tea d that they a re enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m uni tyb ec au se the i r a ct i o ns were co m pel l ed bythe 1978 con sent decree

. They c i te the Ei ghth Ci rcui t ca se of M arti n ez v . City of St. Louis , 539 F.3d 857( 8th Cir. 2008), f o r the p r o po s i t i o n tha te mpl o y men tde c i s i o ns ma de i n acco rdance w i th a cour t-ap prove d consent decree cannot f or m the basi s o fan unlawfuldi scr i m i nati on acti on s eek i ng dam age s. A s a fallback posi ti on, they conte nd thatatthe ver y l eas t, as of20 06 i t was not8 N o. 09

- 2676

The consentd ec ree als o app li ed to the Indianapolis Fir e 7 D ep artm en t. T h is r eq u ir em en t w a s s u b jec t to th e e xi ste n ce o f a su f- 8 ficiently la rg e p oo l of Africa n-A m erica n a p p lican ts. cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed th ata muni ci pale m pl o y ee might f ace l i abi l i ty f orm er e co m pli ance with a c onse nt decr ee. Both ofthes e a rg um ents ar e ba sed o n a f aul ty f actual prem i se

— na m ely, tha t th e co ns en t dec r ee r equi re d the us e o fr ac e as a c r i te r i o n fo r p rom o ti o n wi th i n the Pol i ce Depar tm ent. The 1 97 8 co ns ent d ecr ee i s a co m pr eh en si ve a g r ee m en t desi gned to r em edy unl aw ful ra ci aldi scr i m i nati on and cor re ct underr epres entat i on a nd underuti l i zati on o f Afr i ca n- Am er i ca ns i n the Po l i ce De par tment
. I t i s true 7 th ats o m e se ct i o ns o fthe 3 0- pag e dec r ee pe r m i t th e Pol i ce Depar tm ent t o take ra ce into acco unt w hen m aking ce rt ai n em plo ym ent decis i ons. Fo r i nstance , Se c tio n I V , w h ich co ve rs “R ec ru itm en t a n d H irin g,” re quir es the Po l i ce Depar tm ent, atl eas t ini tia lly, to ensu re thatA fri can- A m er i cans c onst i tute at l eas t 2 5% o f al l future tr ai ni ng classe s fori ncom i ng o ffi cer s. T h is 8 sect i on o fthe decree al so conta i ns ge nera l l anguage es tabl i sh in ga “ l o ng - r an g e g o al ” o f“ i nc r ea s[ i ng ] the bl ack com posi ti on o fthe Police a nd Fi re Departm ents so that i t m or e nearl y refl ects the ra ci aland ethnic com posit ion of th e w or k for c e o f th e C ity of Ind ian ap olis .” Se ction X , ti tl ed “J ob A ssi gnm ents, ” i s desi gned to el i m i nate ra ce-b ased w or k a ssi gnm ents; i t s tat es that “d u tie s, j ob as sig n m en ts an d tra n sfe rs giv en to an y in d i-N o. 09

- 2676 9 vid u al off ice r ar e n otto be ba se d so lely u p on an y in d ivi dual ’ s r ac e o r c o l o r . ” I m po r ta nt l y he r e, the c o ns en t d ec re e is qu i te cle ar th at rac e s h all h av e n o p lac e in th e p r om ot ion s p ro c es s. P ro m ot ion s a re ad d re ss ed in S e c tion I X , and that section con tains lang ua ge sp ecifi cal l y m andati ng tha t “ [ p]r om oti ons shal l be base d up on re l evantst anda rd s an d cri ter i a which wi l l b eapp l i e d wi t houtregar d t o rac eorc ol or .” (E m p h as is a d d ed .) Face d w i th thi s unm i sta kabl e di re cti ve, the ci ty offi ci al s co ntend th at theywere m or e g ener al l y r equi re d to t ak e appr o pr i at e re m edi ala ct i o ns

— i nc l udi nga ct i o ns th a twe r e d i r e c t l y mo t i v a t e d b yr a c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o ns

— in o r dert o e ffec tu at e th e o ve r al l pur p o se s o fthe c o ns en t d ec re e, i.e
. , to in c re as e t h e n u m b er of A fric an -A m er icans thro ughou t al l l eve l s o fthe Pol i ce Depar tm ent. They i nsi st th at thi s r eadi ng i s the o nl y o ne that“har m on ize s” all of th e c on se n t d ec re e’s ke y p ro vis ion s. T h eir ar gu m en t h in ge s o n th e “ G o als ” s u b se c tio n of Se c tio n IX ofthe decree , wh i ch st ate s in re l evantpart : A s a l ong- ter m go al, [ the Po l i ce Dep ar tm ent] ag re e[ s] to a do pt an d s ee k [ s] t o a ch i ev e a g o alo fpr o m o ting bl ac k s to the r an k s o fS er g ean t, Li eu te na nta nd Cap tain w i thi n the Pol i ce D ep ar tm ent .
. . so as to att ai n a per centag e withi n thos e r anks w h ich is re aso nabl y r epr es en ta ti ve o fthe pe r ce nt age i n the ra n ks from w h ich p ro m ot ion s a re tra d itio n ally m ade, th e b lack perc entag es ofwh i ch w i l l beg i n to i ncre ase under th e p rovi si ons ofthi s Decr ee re l ati ve to th e re c ru itm en t a n d h irin g of p olic e o ffice rs . . . . The c i tyo ffi ci al s as kus t o r ea d thi s pr o vi si o n in c o nj uncti on with an e ar l i erpro vi si on wh i ch pro vi des that10 N o. 09

- 2676

“ [ r ] e me d i a l a c t i o n s a n d p r a c t i c e s r e q u i r e d b y th e t e r ms orper m i tte d to effectuat e a nd car ryo ut the p u rp ose s of th is D ec re e s h all n o t b e d ee m ed d isc rim in at or y . . . .” Theyma i nt a i n tha tthe s e t wo s e c t i o ns , wh e n r ead tog ether, requ i re d

— oratl eas t a uthor i zed

— the a dj ustm en t of th e e l i gibi l i ty l i st on the bas i s o fr ace i n or der to guar antee thata “r eas onabl y r epres entative” num ber o fAf r i ca n- Am er i ca ns wer e pr o m o te d t o c apt ain. The tr ou bl e with thi s a rgum ent i s that i t r uns headl ong i nto th e co ns en t dec r ee ’ s ex pl i ci t pr o hibitio n a g ains t us i ng ra ce in m aking pro m oti on deci si ons. The defe nd ants als o contend thatthe conse nt decr ee w ou ld be ren d ered i nt erna ll y i nc ons istent i f S e ction IX’s p r o h i b i tio n on u sin g ra c e a s a p ro m ot ion cr ite rion is r ea d a s anabs o l ut e ba r a g ains t an y r ac e-bas ed dec i si o nm ak in g in th e p ro m ot ion s c on te x t. T h is a rg u m en t is unc o nvi nc i ng . W e fi nd no i nc o ns i st en ci es i n the l an gu age of the vari ou s p rovisi ons ; i n fact, the fram ew ork th e d ec re e e st ab lish es is qu ite logic al. T hree criti cal elem en ts of the c o n sen t d ecree w ork t o e ns ure that A fri can -A m ericans are prom oted to sergea nt, l i eutenant, and captain at a r eas onabl e r ate
. Fi rs t, S ecti on IV re quir es that th e poolo fappli cants f or these var i ous pos i ti ons ( i.e. , offi cer s i n the Pol i ce D epart
m ent) i ncl ud e a “r eas onabl y r epres entat i ve ” num bero f A frican- A m er i cans. S eco nd , S ecti on X r equi re s the Pol i ce Dep ar tm ent t o re fra i n from u si ng r ace as a f acto r w hen hand i ng o ut j ob ass i gnm ents; am ong othe r thi ngs, th is provision assu res tha t A fri can -A m erican offi cers ar e no t r outi nel y e xcl ud ed fro m work ass i gnm en tsN o. 09

- 2676 11 l i kel y t o l ead to pro m oti on. Final ly, the conse nt decr ee r eq uires th at th e “p rom otional selection d evice[s]” ad op te d by th e P olic e D ep ar tm en t b e ra c ially n eu tr al. M or e s peci fi cal l y, S ecti on I X(D ) m andates that any pr om oti onal scr eeni ng too l “m ay not be used m or e t h an on e ( 1 ) t i m e if it h as an ad ve rs e e ffec t o n bla c ks an d it i s no t s how n to be proper l y v al i da te d i n acco rdance w ith ap p lica b le fe d er al g u id elin es .” I f th e Po l i ce Depa r tment wer e per m i tt ed to adj us t the re su lts of an y p ro m ot ion al t es t, ex p o st, i n o r de r t o a dv a nt a g e Afr i c a n- Am e r i c a n o ffi c e r s , S ub s e c t i o n I X( D) woul d b e o fl i tt l e us e be ca us e th e resu lts o fa ny o ffen di ngt es t co ul d s i m pl y b e m an i pul at ed afte r the fac t in ord er to p ro d u c e t h e d e sir ed ou tc om e. P ro p er ly und er sto od , S ubsect i on I X, r ead as a w hol e, o perat es to prohibi t s o- cal l ed “race- nor m i ng” in prom oti ons. A ccor din gly , we agr ee w i th the m agi str ate j ud ge that the c onse nt decr ee d id n ot re quir e the use ofr ace as a f actor i n m aking pro m oti on deci si ons. The i nd i vi du al defe nd ants ar e not enti tl ed to quali fi ed i m m unity fro m sui t. A FFI RMED .

9- 10- 10