Qualified Immunity: The Problem With American Police Officers
Note: Qualified immunity applies to many more government officials other than strictly police officers. However, I am only focusing on police officers in this specific article, but many of my arguments still apply to the other professions.
A Little Context
In 1961, a group of 15 pastors, a mix of white and black individuals, entered a coffee shop in the Jackson Railway terminal. Walking to seat themselves, two police officers confronted the group, asking them all to leave due to the interracial mixture of the bunch. The priests, protesting the corruption during the peak of racial segregation in America, refused to leave which landed them a hefty several-month jail sentence.
Eventually, the group of pastors took the police officers to court, deeming that Title 42, Section 1983 of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act was violated. Since the officers made a false arrest based on the free exercise of the constitution, the pastors exclaimed their rights were actively violated during the incident.
The city judge ruled that the pastors were unlawfully arrested as the Mississippi stature the officers originally used to justify the arrests was found unconstitutional; however, the policemen failed to agree with the verdict. The case went through several upper courts before landing on the desks of the Supreme Court.
In Pierson v. Ray, the Supreme Court held that the police had not violated any of the pastors’ rights because they acted under good faith and in accordance with the law at the time. Through the majority decision, the idea of qualified immunity emerged.
People’s Rights
In simple terms, qualified immunity is a legal doctrine which grants government officials increased protection in court. For example, when a police officer mistakenly searches an individual without reasonable cause, the individual searched will have a significantly more difficult time in suing the police officer in court.
Before expanding our understanding of qualified immunity, a proper definition of Title 42, Section 1983 is needed.
According to the Constitution,
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured…”
In other words, an individual is able to sue government officials for infringing on one’s constitutional rights, but does this paint the whole picture? In my opinion, no. Section 1983 does indeed allow a person to sue government officials, such as police officers, but because of qualified immunity, the person’s efforts are rarely successful.
Qualified Immunity and It’s Faults
The infamous legal doctrine may have been originally developed out of good faith with the idea of allowing police officers to effectively work; however, qualified immunity has evolved into the demise of the rights of the American people.
As decided in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, qualified immunity is only applicable if,
- The plaintiff’s rights were violated
- The right was clearly established
The problem with the current test is found in the second criteria point of “The right was clearly established.” In the realm of judiciary processes, clearly established means a similar situation with similar circumstances was already brought to the courts and ended with a specific conclusion.
In other words, if a clear constitutional right violation occurs, but happens to be immensely absurd and specific, such as the case of the house the police blew up, the officer(s) will, in most cases, receive qualified immunity.
Many might hear the words “absurd” and “specific” and immediately jump to the conclusion that police officers will simply not behave in that manner, but that is simply not true.
To fully understand the insane measures and behavior of police officers, I suggest spending some time watching these YouTubers:
In most cases, police officers are blowing trivial crimes out of proportion, ruining innocent people’s lives, and placing a vast amount of fear in the eyes of the people.
For example, in just this video, the viewer witnesses an unlawful arrest, a violation of an individual’s 4th and 5th amendment rights, and much more. Towards the end of the video, the female tyrant even exaggerates and lies to the mans coworkers to get him fired for “refusing to talk to me”:
(For a quick overview of some of the more violent misconducts of police: https://www.naacpldf.org/qi-police-misconduct/)
As one observes, qualified immunity restricts police officers from being held accountable for their actions.
But wait, qualified immunity does not always apply and the police officers are genuinely held accountable right? Well, no.
According to Police Indemnification by Joanna C. Schwartz,
“Between 2006 and 2011, in forty-four of the seventy largest law enforcement agencies across the country, officers paid just .02% of the dollars awarded to plaintiffs in police misconduct suits. In thirty-seven small and mid-sized law enforcement agencies, officers never contributed to settlements or judgments. No officer in any of the eighty-one jurisdictions satisfied a punitive damages judgment entered against him. Officers did not contribute to settlements and judgments even when indemnification was prohibited by statute or policy. And officers were indemnified even when they were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their misconduct. Although government attorneys may strategically employ the threat that officers will be denied indemnification, governments almost always satisfy settlements and judgments in full.”
Even when government officials, such as a trooper, are fired and sued, another department is more than happy to hire them to continue to violate other citizens.
Defenders of Qualified Immunity
Many of the individuals defending the disturbing immunity-based doctrine invoke three typical defenses:
- Police officers need Q.I. to effectively keep citizens safe.
- Meritless lawsuits will flood the desks of the courts.
- Police officers will constantly be in trouble leaving departments without workers and/or individuals bankrupt.
My response to each argument:
- If police officers need a get-out-of-jail free card to do their job, then there needs to be some major reforms happening. No individuals, other than government officials, receive qualified immunity. Constitutional rights were specifically made to keep governments free from becoming too authoritarian; thus, police officers are void of any privilege(s) to strip others of their given rights. Removing qualified immunity is not only protecting the citizens but requiring police departments to place more emphasis on proper training. Furthermore, departments, upon the removal of qualified immunity, will challenge their workers to be the best-of-the-best because not only is money on the line but their reputation.
- Lawyers do not willingly accept each and every case, and even if they did, courts have specific processes in place to restrict an abundance of meritless lawsuits flooding in.
- As shown before, police officers are nearly always protected from monetary compensation. Even if officers were not protected, everyone is subject to the same treatment. Officers should take each call and stop with precision and accuracy. If done correctly, courts will act accordingly.
More often than not, I hear many conservatives and republicans invoking these arguments. To me, that makes no sense.
Upon entering the The Republican National Committees website, I am prompted to donate to help “the millions of Americans fighting every day to keep our country free.” If that is the case, wouldn’t republicans be increasingly interested in the issue of qualified immunity being removed? Clearly, as shown by the YouTubers I linked above, police officers are often treading on people’s rights.
End Statement
The removal of qualified immunity seems to be a step towards freedom; but what do you think?
