• Home
  • Attorneys + Staff
  • Practice
  • Figo House
  • Featured Client
  • Recent Work
  • Resources
  • Publications
  • Contact Us
Menu

A+A

  • Home
  • Attorneys + Staff
  • Practice
  • Figo House
  • Featured Client
  • Recent Work
  • Resources
  • Publications
  • Contact Us
protest bridge (r).jpg

Millions March But Just Nine Needed

June 10, 2020

Changing the Law to Curtail Police Misconduct

When Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer, put his knee on George Floyd’s neck he appeared to stare straight into the camera. He was not deterred by being filmed by either a police body camera or the phone of an onlooker. Why wasn’t he concerned, at least for his own legal liability? Two words--qualified immunity.
 
Chauvin likely knew that as a police officer he would be protected by qualified immunity, a court-created doctrine with no constitutional basis. As the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
 
Courts have construed “clearly established” as requiring a prior case with nearly identical facts. In other words, Chauvin could argue that there is no legal precedent specifically providing that kneeling on the neck of another is forbidden.
 
Practically, qualified immunity can protect egregious police misconduct. As stated by the Supreme Court in Malley v. Briggs (1986) qualified immunity “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”
 
Both the Court’s most liberal member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as well as it most conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, have expressed a desire to revisit qualified immunity. The Court has indicated that it will hear argument in the appeal of the 9th Circuit case of West v. City of Caldwell. West involves use of the qualified immunity defense to avoid police liability for smashing windows and lobbing canisters of tear gas into a home because someone with a warrant was suspected to be inside.
 
A new ruling from the nation’s top court would provide pause to police officers. While protecting a civil servant from civil lawsuits makes sense for teachers, firefighters and EPA officials, providing the same qualified immunity protection to an official carrying a deadly weapon may need some changes.
 
If you know what life is worth
You will look for yours on earth
And now you see the light
You stand up for your rights.
—Bob Marley

← Update—Police Misconduct & Qualified Immunity DefenseMoney for Nothin' . . . Except More Forms →

Latest Posts

Featured
Mar 9, 2021
Employer-Mandated Vaccination?
Mar 9, 2021
Mar 9, 2021
Dec 18, 2020
COVID-19 Vaccines & Employers
Dec 18, 2020
Dec 18, 2020
Nov 25, 2020
Turkey, Pumpkin Pie and Pandemic
Nov 25, 2020
Nov 25, 2020
Sep 30, 2020
Doing Business During the Apocalypse
Sep 30, 2020
Sep 30, 2020
Sep 15, 2020
Using the Fires, Riots or COVID-19 to Your (Legal) Advantage
Sep 15, 2020
Sep 15, 2020
Jul 28, 2020
Protest Update
Jul 28, 2020
Jul 28, 2020
Jul 23, 2020
Federal Officers in Portland
Jul 23, 2020
Jul 23, 2020
Jun 15, 2020
Update—Police Misconduct & Qualified Immunity Defense
Jun 15, 2020
Jun 15, 2020
Jun 10, 2020
Millions March But Just Nine Needed
Jun 10, 2020
Jun 10, 2020
May 19, 2020
Money for Nothin' . . . Except More Forms
May 19, 2020
May 19, 2020