Read on Twitter
This gem popped up in my newfeed. #QualifiedImmunity (QA) is now an election issue. I love #politics and I love #policing so let's do some #education on the subject.
If you're not sure what QA is, follow me down the rabbit hole:
If you're not sure what QA is, follow me down the rabbit hole:
QA protects public officials from lawsuits, SOMETIMES.
1st: When cops are sued (typically thru section 1983 of the U.S.C.) they can be held personally liable for damages ($$$).
And that $$$ can amount to as much or more than you'd even earn in your career.
Keep reading...
1st: When cops are sued (typically thru section 1983 of the U.S.C.) they can be held personally liable for damages ($$$).
And that $$$ can amount to as much or more than you'd even earn in your career.
Keep reading...
QA is supposed to protect anyone except the malicious or plainly incompetent.
IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO ALL COPS.
In lawsuits, QA is determined by two things:
IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO ALL COPS.
In lawsuits, QA is determined by two things:
1) Was there a constitutional violation?
2) Was there clearly established case law restricting said behavior.
For an concrete example, lets turn to Tenn v. Garner (Decided in 1985, but occurred in 1974)
2) Was there clearly established case law restricting said behavior.
For an concrete example, lets turn to Tenn v. Garner (Decided in 1985, but occurred in 1974)
Tenn. v. Garner: Cops arrived at burglary (felony). Cop shoots fleeing burglar.
Based on law at the time, this was lawful based on Tenn. law (derived from common law about deadly force & fleeing felons).
The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) ruled:
Based on law at the time, this was lawful based on Tenn. law (derived from common law about deadly force & fleeing felons).
The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) ruled:
The officer would be entitled to QA (As ruled at the appellate level) because his actions were consistent with law at the time.
However, SCOTUS felt that any fleeing felon can't be shot unless there is an articulable, immediate threat to cops or the community.
However, SCOTUS felt that any fleeing felon can't be shot unless there is an articulable, immediate threat to cops or the community.
So in essence, courts set a precedent (new SOP) via this case (case law).
They said the cop acted as he was trained and as the law was understood, so he gets a pass.
But going forward, the new interpretation will prohibit such conduct.
They said the cop acted as he was trained and as the law was understood, so he gets a pass.
But going forward, the new interpretation will prohibit such conduct.
QA is a protection for Cops to act reasonably as they were trained and understand the law.
It does not protect Cops who knowingly violate rights or case law.
Because law in the United States is always evolving, it is supposed to act as a reasonable shield from frivolous suits.
It does not protect Cops who knowingly violate rights or case law.
Because law in the United States is always evolving, it is supposed to act as a reasonable shield from frivolous suits.
If you dig, you'll find cases where QA shielded someone you probably don't think should be. But, like many things in policing it does seem to be reasonable when viewed as a whole.
What do you think, scrap it all or find ways to revise it?
@michelle_furlow @DanCrenshawTX
What do you think, scrap it all or find ways to revise it?
@michelle_furlow @DanCrenshawTX
