Opinions: A Discussion on Qualified Immunity - Guest Column
A DISCUSSION ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Published June 17, 2020
“No one is above the law” was a saying I often heard spoken by the adult figures of my early childhood. Some of these vocal individuals included the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E) police officers who repeated the saying when coming to warn my fellow fifth graders and me about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. The line itself seems to be used as a form of intimidation for someone of a young age—a warning that there is no exception for a person who breaks the law.
Yet now more than ever I feel the need to question those well known six words. Is there really no one above the law? Or were those very D.A.R.E police officers preaching a false narrative, as the motto has a special exception for them?
On Sunday, May 31, U.S. Rep. Justin Amash announced the Ending Qualified Immunity Act and called out to other legislatures to support the act, which would put an end to the legal doctrine of Qualified Immunity. The concept of Qualified Immunity was first introduced in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court mainly as a way to protect law officials from trivial lawsuits of officers who had acted in “good faith.” Now, the doctrine is fully established and is usually used as a defense for law enforcement officers’ actions. The doctrine states that government officials may only be sued for their actions if they violated “clearly established” federal law or constitutional rights.
Over the long history of the doctrine, and even more so recently, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have generally found that most police officers' actions brought to the courts are not in violation of “clearly established” laws and rights. Thus, in many cases, no relief is given to those affected by police officers’ wrongdoings as they are not able to hold offending officers accountable.
In past years, with Qualified Immunity as a defense, police officers accused of stealing over $225,000 (Jessop v. City of Fresno), shooting a woman four times while standing in her front yard (Kisela vs. Hughes) and numerous others were let off and not able to be sued. Qualified Immunity is usually the victor in cases such as these unless the victim can find a past judicial decision that involved the same context and conduct to use as defense.
Qualified Immunity has a history of acting as a get-out-of-jail-free card for many law enforcement officers, allowing them to maintain the mentality of “shoot first and think later.” The doctrine acts as a shortcut for many courts too. Instead of courts reviewing and analyzing whether a person's rights were violated, they can simply implement the doctrine and dismiss the case.
Over the long history of the doctrine, and even more so recently, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have generally found that most police officers' actions brought to the courts are not in violation of “clearly established” laws and rights. Thus, in many cases, no relief is given to those affected by police officers’ wrongdoings as they are not able to hold offending officers accountable.
In past years, with Qualified Immunity as a defense, police officers accused of stealing over $225,000 (Jessop v. City of Fresno), shooting a woman four times while standing in her front yard (Kisela vs. Hughes) and numerous others were let off and not able to be sued. Qualified Immunity is usually the victor in cases such as these unless the victim can find a past judicial decision that involved the same context and conduct to use as defense.
Qualified Immunity has a history of acting as a get-out-of-jail-free card for many law enforcement officers, allowing them to maintain the mentality of “shoot first and think later.” The doctrine acts as a shortcut for many courts too. Instead of courts reviewing and analyzing whether a person's rights were violated, they can simply implement the doctrine and dismiss the case.
“No one is above the law” according to many within the U.S., yet government officials, and primarily police officers, get to ‘freeze’ constitutional law when they have done something unlawful—contradicting that very statement. If D.A.R.E police officers and others wish for this statement to hold some type of truth like we’ve been led to believe, approaches like Amash’s to diminish the doctrine need to be put into action.
Text “SIGN SEUDKP” to 50409 to sign the “End Qualified Immunity Act” and have it delivered to your officials.
Designer: M. McBride
Comments
Post a Comment