Recent unrest has thrust the doctrine of qualified immunity into the spotlight. Many of those who oppose law enforcement frequently misrepresent the nature, extent, and intent of this limited immunity. Doing so fosters the “us versus them” mentality and abrogation advocates suggest the immunity is an example of “rules for thee not for me.” “After all,” they argue, “the average person on the street does not get any immunity from suit, why should law enforcement officers?” Whether by accident or design, opponents of the immunity falsely claim the doctrine insulates officers from police misconduct claims and the financial consequences of violating the constitutional rights of the people they are responsible for policing. A movement is afoot to strip officers of this very limited immunity under the guise of protecting the public and permitting those victims of police misconduct to recover from their oppressors. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects all government officials acting within the scope of their governmental duties, not just law enforcement officers. As a threshold manner, constitutional theories of liability are available only against the government and government officials, not against private citizens. Private citizens simply cannot sue each other for a violation of the constitution. In order to qualify for protection under qualified immunity, a public official must first prove he was acting within the scope of the discretionary authority provided by his or her governmental position. This applies equally to all governmental officials. The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. Court’s unanimously recognize the doctrine is designed to protect routine decision-making and actions by government officials, but expressly excludes the “plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”[i] Qualified immunity is not carte blanche to violate the constitutional rights of others, but instead, provides a defense from personal liability for routine, good-faith decisions by government officials, including law enforcement officers.
When qualified immunity is implicated, the plaintiff must demonstrate the law allegedly violated by the officer was clearly established. More specifically, a plaintiff must point to earlier binding case law that is materially similar to the current case or show...
