Qualified Immunity

On the heels of the tragic loss of George Floyd, law enforcement in general has sustained numerous amounts of criticism. Rightfully so but as a reminder the actions of those Minneapolis officers along with the latest actions in Atlanta this past week where Rayshard Brooks was killed do not justify labeling all police officers. Ideally the biggest thing to recently come out is the elements of qualified immunity and how they relate to public safety and other government officials. Its development in the Supreme Court has been marked by ad hoc decision-making, conflicting rationales, and a high degree of doctrinal manipulation (Rudovsky, 1989).

Some people believe that qualified immunity is for rogue cops to get away with acts that clearly violates a person’s constitutional rights. Well what about the good cops who just so happen do all the right things and still must face scrutiny for their actions even if deemed justified by a jury or seated magistrate. I find it puzzling how Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI), has quickly launched a proposal to legislation that would completely abolish qualified immunity altogether. There are previous case law rulings that go in depth about qualified immunity and even goes as far as establishing elements that a reasonable person would have known. Qualified immunity protects government officers from liability for money damages where the violated constitutional right was not “clearly established” (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 1982). It is a good read as it talks about the discretionary functions and the shielding from liability for civil damages, although conduct of those involved must be adequate and not in question during the incident. Qualified immunity does not eliminate the burden of cities having to go through litigation and subsequently decide to settle the suit short of going to court. Wrongdoing by any official only opens the agency and city for litigation but does not mean that a person’s constitutional rights were automatically violated.

I do not believe that any judge seated on the Supreme Court or any other court would willingly turn a blind eye to such evidence of clearly violated constitutional rights to declare qualified immunity. Not only is that a violation of their ethical and moral codes as being sworn to uphold the law in all regards that could pose great impact on the other decisions handed down regarding such behavior. If the defendant’s conduct was “objectively reasonable” (Anderson v. Creighton, 1987) in light of the existing legal principles governing the particular area, qualified immunity protects officials against damages (Rudovsky, 1989). As we witnessed the recent declining by the Supreme Court to hear cases that challenge officers’ qualified immunity. In doing this job for over a decade I find that decision to be acceptable as officers take an oath of office to uphold the law and follow the law accordingly. I understand that well over 50 years have passed since this topic has been visited, but is changing this element going to render the sanctions necessary to rebuild in a positive manner? I applaud Chief Justice John Roberts for acknowledging that “baby steps” are vital in this aspect versus these big immediate changes that are being pushed out. The future is brighter especially taking into account all the factors that are going on currently but we all must be patient and continue to move toward the goal of a true reform where accountability, transparency, and patience reign supreme not conspiracies and far fetched ideas that have no sustainable facts or evidence to support them.

Reference:
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640-41 (1987). Qualified immunity is not a defense to injunctive actions. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/635/

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/

Rudovsky, D. (1989). “The Qualified Immunity Doctrine in the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism and the Restriction of Constitutional Rights”. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1507. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1507