Is qualified Immunity on its way out

In 1967, the Supreme Court carved out a “qualified immunity” exception that helps government officials: They couldn’t be sued if they were acting in good faith and didn’t know what they were doing was illegal. Over the years, the court expanded that doctrine so that now, even police officers who knowingly violate someone’s rights are protected—unless a court has ruled that their behavior was unconstitutional in a previous case involving nearly identical circumstances.
Last year, for example, a federal appeals court found that a police officer who shot a 10-year-old by mistake while aiming for the family’s dog was protected from liability under qualified immunity. The judges ruled that he couldn’t be held responsible because there wasn’t a previous case where an officer was found at fault in almost identical circumstances.
Qualified immunity has blocked lawsuits for people who were killed by police during arrests; a man who was shot and killed after a 911 dispatcher put him in harm’s way; and a man who gouged his own eyes out in jail after he was denied mental health care.
A political mix of civil rights advocates and civil libertarians has taken aim at qualified immunity, which Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has criticized as an “absolute shield” for officers accused of brutality.

Newman and her longtime friend Herod, a Black woman who is vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee in Colorado, built a bill using some of the state’s most egregious examples of police brutality as a guide for what practices needed to change. Some of their police accountability work ended up getting support from a broad coalition ranging from the ACLU to Colorado’s Fraternal Order of Police. Chokeholds are now banned, and most cops must keep their body cameras on during encounters with the public. However, ultimately the Fraternal Order of Police did not support removing qualified immunity.
The new law also made it easier to sue at the state level and bar qualified immunity as a defense for cops. The hope is that it will be easier to hold officers and their employers accountable in state court. If other states follow suit, people will likely bypass federal civil rights lawsuits in those places altogether.In addition to prohibiting the defense of qualified immunity, the law also says that if officers lose in state court, they may have to pay 5 percent of damages, up to $25,000, of their own money. The state can also revoke an officer's certifications, banishing them from any local policing job in the state, if a criminal or civil court finds them liable for using too much force. Cops who fail to intervene when colleagues use excessive force can also lose their badges.
The law was designed to make sure victims of police violence like McClain’s family have an easy path for payouts, Herod said, and make it easier to remove abusive cops from the profession by revoking their certification.

"We can’t bring a life back,” she said. “But if we’re going to do something in someone's name and someone’s legacy, it better be bold and make a real difference."Despite the wording of the Colorado law, experts say it is unlikely that many police officers will have to empty their bank accounts to pay for bad behavior. Insurance companies and taxpayers are more likely to be on the hook.
Local leaders—not an independent oversight agency—will decide whether an officer acted in good faith and therefore doesn’t have to pay damages, said Chief Cory Christensen, who heads the Steamboat Springs Police Department and is also president of the state’s Association of Chiefs of Police.
So cities and counties will continue to pick up the costs for abusive police behavior unless local officials rule that an officer was not acting, as the legislation says, under “reasonable belief that the action was lawful.”

LINK

The incident that drove the change in qualified immunity was the death of 23-year-old Elijah McClain, the video of the incident is below.



I believe originally good intentions were behind qualified immunity however it has become apparent that the law has been abused by police over the years. I have seen videos of police make unlawful arrests and violate rights even when presented with the statutes and laws showing the citizen was not breaking the law and well within their rights to be where they were and do what they were doing.

I follow a couple of 1st amendment auditors that do not act disrespectful keep a cool head and follow the laws. Here are a couple of videos from the same day that show the officers did not know the laws or simply didn't care about the laws. My opinion is they didn't care and if they act that way over a camera just imagine how they act with other people.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It started with good intentions and is now abused.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Is qualified Immunity on its way out

I hope so. Nothing will change with how police treat people until they’re able to be held accountable for their own actions.

I find it crazy that people are ok with giving agents of the state immunity from prosecution when they abuse or kill people.

a reply to: underwerks

most people are not ok with it. Qualified immunity is akin to the mafia giving a pass to its own made men when they victimize a regular joe.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Grimpachi

It started with good intentions and is now abused.

Yep, like most things, people abuse what was originally done under good intentions.
They have no one to blame but themselves.
It needs to go away.

I think with the rise of video cameras in everyone's hands it has become harder for people to ignore what can either be negligence, arrogance, or corruption in the police. I believe there are many good officers doing their job as they were entrusted to do, but more and more videos are posted weekly showing officers who do not enforce the law as written but their own law.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Like that disaster of a town in Arizona where the entire force is composed of violent rejects from other departments.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I would have said that must be the worst department but I have seen videos that easily compete with them.

Have you seen the video where cops cut power to a home that had security cameras then break in to search it and the computer camera that was on a battery recorded everything?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What town is that?

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Superior Arizona

a reply to: Grimpachi

Superior, it's loaded with scumbags.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Every single officer at least at one point will behave in a way to get them fired. Its not an easy job, and questionable judgement is easy to find in retrospect of a stressful situation.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's the ones who do things that should get them fired as a rule and not the exception that is the problem.

I have a feeling that if they are willing to do it on camera it has already become the rule. That is the reason I support some 1st amendment auditors. The ones I support are calm never abusive nor do they get loud or escalate. They state they are acting as reporters and practicing a constitutionally protected activity. Some of them have been arrested several times for failure to ID or some other trumped-up charge but they generally try to avoid arrest and once they are threatened with arrest for failure to ID they will ID then file 1984 lawsuits.

I have seen them quote the statute for ID law and explain exactly what it says, but the cops still force the issue. Those cops IMO are so used to doing things their way instead of the lawful way and they are already lost causes.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
It's the ones who do things that should get them fired as a rule and not the exception that is the problem.

And the ones who tolerate the scumbags who wear the same uniform. Because of this, you can't trust any of 'em.

When I retired, they attached my badge to a plaque (that I paid for). I feel I have the right to call a spade a spade.

ETA: As far as Qualified Immunity goes ... if it's taken away, the blame games are gonna be fun. They're already a problem today. If someone wants to break the problem in half, then the tax-payer must be given absolute relief from the consequences of police action. I mean ... if the mayor didn't put beat cops on the payroll ... we'd have none of these problems at all ... now would we?

a reply to: Snarl

I would like to think that most cops try their best to do the right thing, but it is getting harder as more comes to light.

It sucks that the state had to pay 50K for these clowns but unless something is done to curb the abuse of qualified immunity it will keep happening. These lawsuits are the only real motivation for the state to do something about it. It was really insightful hearing what they planned.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I would like to think that most cops try their best to do the right thing, but it is getting harder as more comes to light.

That's a normal guy giving people the benefit of the doubt. Reality is, these people weren't going very far in society to begin with. Yes ... there are professionals ... but, by-and-large ... the truth is most are doing just enough to keep themselves on the payroll.

They're familiar with the common laws people break, aware of the general aggravations leadership wants held at bay, study what's made mandatory ... blah-blah-blah. They rarely consider conflicts with local law and the US Constitution, because they're not that bright. They rarely avoid what they're about to do as a matter of instinct ... in favor of keeping the upper-hand over one of 'us'.

I've tried so many times to write an accurate description of the relief I feel being out of that community. Words can't.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Grimpachi

Every single officer at least at one point will behave in a way to get them fired. Its not an easy job, and questionable judgement is easy to find in retrospect of a stressful situation.

So. Having a database (that works....is clearly not the case in AZ) for violent and corrupt cops is or isn’t as important a Sex Offender national registry....

Also: So. Is it kosher and above board to send all those stressed out and unlawful LEOs to work in one town?

Talk about crimes of convenience....

a reply to: slatesteam

Is it kosher and above board to send all those stressed out and unlawful LEOs to work in one town?

Are they sent there, or just welcomed?

a reply to: Snarl

The guy who stole my girlfriend was a cop while going to law school. He became an attorney eventually.

Asshole.

Nah, it wasn't his fault. Actually.

Just because some cops are abusing it does not mean it is a bad policy. Get rid of the trigger happy cops that abuse it. Some innocent people will get hurt when cops break up crimes, but most often that does not happen. If a criminal pulls a gun and aims it at the cop, the cop has the right to defend himself. If the person does something that looks like he or she or it is pulling a gun or coming at them with a knife, the cop should protect themselves and shoot too if they believe their life is in danger.

Getting rid of the people with a hair trigger is essential, most cops are not a problem.