Qualified Immunity

[blackangst1]

This subject is kind of a rabbit hole, and one that has had many legal challenges through the years.

First. What is qualified immunity? Wiki says :

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".[1] It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions",[2] extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law".[3] Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.[4]
The U.S. Supreme Court first introduced the qualified immunity doctrine in Pierson v. Ray (1967), a case litigated during the height of the civil rights movement. It is stated to have been originally introduced with the rationale of protecenforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear legal situations.[5][6].

or

Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity. “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan .
Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.
Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.
Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines.

That's in a nutshell.

Qualified immunity was originally created to protect government officials (including police officers) from overzealous prosecution by the public. However, since then its expanded to a wide scope.

There have been several court opinions on this, the most important being:

• • 1.1Pierson v. Ray
  • 1.2Bivens and 42 USC § 1983 lawsuits
  • 1.3Harlow v. Fitzgerald
  • 1.4Saucier v. Katz
  • 1.5Pearson v. Callahan

There have been several challenges to qualified immunity, including:

On March 1, 2018, the Cato Institute launched a strategic campaign to challenge the doctrine of qualified immunity, centered on "a series of targeted amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to reverse its precedents and eliminate the doctrine outright".[47] By January 2020, this campaign had garnered the support of a cross-ideological spectrum of public interest organizations, including the ACLU, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Institute for Justice, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Second Amendment Foundation.[47]
In August 2018, Circuit Judge Don Willett concurred dubitante when the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the Texas Medical Board was entitled to qualified immunity for an unconstitutional warrantless search it made of a doctor's patient records.[55] Willett called for "thoughtful reappraisal" of the "'clearly established law' prong of qualified-immunity analysis", citing a tendency for many courts to grant immunity based on no clear precedent, while avoiding the question of whether a Constitutional violation has occurred. Hence, those courts do not establish new law, so "[w]rongs are not righted, and wrongdoers are not reproached."[56] He wrote:

To some observers, qualified immunity smacks of unqualified impunity, letting public officials duck consequences for bad behavior—no matter how palpably unreasonable—as long as they were the first to behave badly. Merely proving a constitutional deprivation doesn't cut it; plaintiffs must cite functionally identical precedent that places the legal question "beyond debate" to "every" reasonable officer. Put differently, it's immaterial that someone acts unconstitutionally if no prior case held such misconduct unlawful. This current "yes harm, no foul" imbalance leaves victims violated but not vindicated.
[...]
Section 1983 meets Catch-22. Important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered. Courts then rely on that judicial silence to conclude there's no equivalent case on the books. No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability. An Escherian Stairwell. Heads government wins, tails plaintiff loses.[57][58]

In 2020, there were several cases awaiting a Supreme Court decision involving qualified immunity.[59][60][61] However, on June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear cases involving revisiting qualified immunity.[62][63] This was until November 2, 2020, when the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-1 per curiam decision that the 5th Circuit erred in granting two prison guards qualified immunity despite severe abuses.[64] Erwin Chemerinsky of the UC Berekely School of Law calls this "a rare civil rights victory on qualified immunity."[65]

Recently, there have been several attempts legislatively to end qualified immunity:

On May 30, 2020, U.S. Representative Justin Amash (L-Michigan) proposed the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, stating: "The brutal killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police is merely the latest in a long line of incidents of egregious police misconduct... police are legally, politically, and culturally insulated from consequences for violating the rights of the people whom they have sworn to serve".[66][67][59] On May 29, 2020, Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) announced that she would cosponsor the bill.[68] The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 4, 2020,[69] with 16 additional cosponsors.[70] As of September 12, 2020, it had 66 cosponsors (65 Democrats and 1 Republican).[70] A second bill aimed at ending qualified immunity for law enforcement, the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 (H.R.7120), was introduced by Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) on June 8, 2020.[71] The bill's sponsorship by members of the Libertarian, Republican, and Democratic parties made it the first bill to have tripartisan support in Congress.

On June 3, 2020, Senators Kamala Harris (D-California), Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), and Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) introduced a Senate resolution calling for the elimination of qualified immunity for law enforcement.[72][73] Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) are cosponsors.[72] On June 23, 2020, Senator Mike Braun (R-Indiana) introduced the Reforming Qualified Immunity Act,[74] proposing that "to claim qualified immunity under the Reforming Qualified Immunity Act, a government employee such as a police officer would have to prove that there was a statute or court case in the relevant jurisdiction showing his or her conduct was authorized".[75]
The New York City Council eliminated qualified immunity for city officers in March 2021.[76]

Thats interesting in NY.

One doesnt need to look very hard at violations to qualified immunity...just seach for 1st and 4th Amendment audits on YouTube for hundreds of examples.

What do you guys think about this?

 

[eelw]

Justices and politicians need to be held accountable also

 

[Vic]

QI was designed so that govt officials don't have to be held accountable to the very laws they enforce on the public.

"Laws for thee but not for me."

Edit: youtube 1a auditor channels are awesome BTW. I support their work, but at the same time I do get a kick out of the comments, where one can often see members of the "comply or die" crowd brag about how they don't have to present ID. Self-awareness is not for everyone it seems.

 

[blackangst1]

QI was designed so that govt officials don't have to be held accountable to the very laws they enforce on the public.

"Laws for thee but not for me."

Edit: youtube 1a auditor channels are awesome BTW. I support their work, but at the same time I do get a kick out of the comments, where one can often see members of the "comply or die" crowd brag about how they don't have to present ID. Self-awareness is not for everyone it seems.

Agree 100%. There are some auditors that are assholes, but many are pretty nice and dont mind explaining to people what their doing (A guy named Jason comes to mind although he talks alot). Its amazing after watching as many as I have how police and public dont understand the difference between public and private, and what rights are.

And I love those walks of shame lol

edit: The guy I was talking about is Jason Gutterman and his son. Amagansett Press Net Worth - Arrested, Contact, Email, Age, Wife (moneypromax.com) , YouTube channel Amagansett Press - YouTube

 

[Dave_5k]

UnQualified Immunity, a completely imaginary rule created by the Supreme Court with no basis in law, is an abomination, which has been morphed into nearly unlimited license to steal and kill and generally violate any and all constitutional rights by police and other government officials.

What Is Qualified Immunity? Definition and Examples

Qualified immunity protects police officers from being sued for use of excessive force. Learn more about this controversial legal principle.

www.thoughtco.com

Example: In 2013, three Fresno, California, police officers were accused of stealing $151,380 in cash and another $125,000 in rare coins while legally executing a search warrant in the home of two men suspected of (but never charged with) operating illegal gambling machines. In September 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the incident, there was no “clearly established law” holding that officers had violated the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they allegedly stole property seized under a warrant.

Example: In 2014, a Coffee County, Georgia, police officer, while trying to apprehend a criminal suspect, non-fatally shot a 10-year-old child while trying to shoot a non-threatening family dog. In July 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because in no previous cases was it found to be unconstitutional for a police officer to fire a gun into a group of children without provocation, the officer was protected by qualified immunity.

Thousands more cases of police abuse are thrown out long before trial due to this Supreme Court invented "law" that supersedes the Constitution for police.

Yet to be seen how very limited reforms in states such as Colorado play out, this very minimalist and narrow reform has been in place for more than a year now:

Colorado Tries New Way To Punish Rogue Cops

Individual officers can’t claim ‘qualified immunity’ in excessive force cases, but may not end up paying damages out of their own pockets.

www.themarshallproject.org

 

[ch33zw1z]

^^ still not paying damages out of own pockets? SMH

 

[Dave_5k]

^^ still not paying damages out of own pockets? SMH

Police there still have complete immunity to 1st, 4th and 14th amendment violations, with the sole exception of excessive force. That is, police in Colorado can still steal, imprison without charges, stop and search cars without warrants or basis, and block filming and seize & destroy phones/cameras from citizens filming their activities - as long as they don't use "excessive" force in so doing. All still covered fully by "qualified" immunity judicial precedents for police. Even though clearly constitutional violations, the constitution broadly doesn't apply to on-duty police as ordered by the Supreme Court.

And for the most part police in Colorado still have no individual liability even from trial-convicted excessive force cases, although the city/county/state government entities now have established liability for such excessive force cases - and police are formally at risk of losing their job (in Colorado) if convicted in such a case.

 

[HomerJS]

Based on what I saw here, get rid of it.

Arizona to ban people from filming police within 8ft

Their reasoning is bullshit because there are already laws against non interference. They are trying to stop people from recording but skirt around 1A by adding in 8 feet. In reality police will just order people not to film under threat of arrest. 8ft is tough to debate while police are...

forums.anandtech.com

 

[blackangst1]

Based on what I saw here, get rid of it.

Arizona to ban people from filming police within 8ft

Their reasoning is bullshit because there are already laws against non interference. They are trying to stop people from recording but skirt around 1A by adding in 8 feet. In reality police will just order people not to film under threat of arrest. 8ft is tough to debate while police are...

forums.anandtech.com

Agree.

 

[woolfe9998]

Sovereign immunity is meant to protect the general public from their government being inundated by lawsuits from everyone who is not happy with what some government official did. The government official will not pay the bill. He is indemnified by the government. The lawsuits are not a good way to disinventivize whatever conduct is being complained of. If you want to hold police or other officials accountable for criminal misconduct, they need to be prosecuted and thrown in jail.

In any event, this immunity is qualified, or else the parents of Tamir Rice wouldn't have settled for $4 million from the city of Cleveland.

 

[fskimospy]

Sovereign immunity is meant to protect the general public from their government being inundated by lawsuits from everyone who is not happy with what some government official did. The government official will not pay the bill. He is indemnified by the government. The lawsuits are not a good way to disinventivize whatever conduct is being complained of. If you want to hold police or other officials accountable for criminal misconduct, they need to be prosecuted and thrown in jail.

In any event, this immunity is qualified, or else the parents of Tamir Rice wouldn't have settled for $4 million from the city of Cleveland.

I agree that you can’t have a situation where people sue the government for every imagined slight. I do think qualified immunity has gone way, WAY too far though.

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree that you can’t have a situation where people sue the government for every imagined slight. I do think qualified immunity has gone way, WAY too far though.

You'd have to give me an example. As I mentioned, Tamir Rice's parents settled for IIRC $4 million with the city of Cleveland. The thing about qualified immunity is the line between what qualifies and what does not is blurry, so it is arguable either way. Meaning it is hard to get a case kicked out of court early on. If the matter is publicly controversial, the government entity won't want to get stuck in a drawn out court battle. Hence the settlements.

 

[fskimospy]

You'd have to give me an example. As I mentioned, Tamir Rice's parents settled for IIRC $4 million with the city of Cleveland. The thing about qualified immunity is the line between what qualifies and what does not is blurry, so it is arguable either way. Meaning it is hard to get a case kicked out of court early on. If the matter is publicly controversial, the government entity won't want to get stuck in a drawn out court battle. Hence the settlements.

Well here’s an example:

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/10th-circuit-says-clear-creek-deputy-who-slammed-detainees-head-is-entitled-to-immunity/article_f04db848-ee57-11ec-b57f-6bfbc25a6368.html

 

[blackangst1]

SCOTUS rebuffs case to challenge qualified immunity

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to police qualified immunity defense (msn.com)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a challenge to a legal defense called qualified immunity that has been employed to shield police officers accused of unlawfully using excessive force in a case involving a Michigan police officer who fatally shot a man as he drove away in a car.

 

[HomerJS]

SCOTUS rebuffs case to challenge qualified immunity

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to police qualified immunity defense (msn.com)

Really? But they take up the case Trump tried to prevent Congress access to his documents from his administration when he left? Remember that was the one Trump lost 8-1.

Guess who was the 1???

 

[fskimospy]

SCOTUS rebuffs case to challenge qualified immunity

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to police qualified immunity defense (msn.com)

Sigh. Of all the entirely made up legal doctrines SCOTUS has come up with over the years this is one of the worst.

If Congress/states want to immunize police officers from accountability for egregious misconduct they should pass a law to do that, we should not have courts deciding it is okay for cops to shoot a child in the leg while trying to shoot his dog instead because there was no clearly established constitutional right not to be shot by the cops trying to kill your pet. (This is not a joke, that’s a real case)

 

[blackangst1]

Really? But they take up the case Trump tried to prevent Congress access to his documents from his administration when he left? Remember that was the one Trump lost 8-1.

Guess who was the 1???

Which has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[HomerJS]

Which has nothing to do with the thread.

Duh!!

My comment was about how SCOTUS cherry-picks the cases they take up to they can push their outcomes or stop other outcomes. A lot of the more nefarious cases they pick done under cover of the shadow docket.

Ever heard on an example.