Spats McGee’s Primer on Civil Rights Litigation and Qualified Immunity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's backtrack a bit for something of a bird's eye view of the subject.

First, sovereign immunity is a complex topic and manifests itself in various ways in various circumstances. A comprehensive discussion of sovereign immunity in the United States is well beyond the scope of this thread. If anyone is interested in beginning his (or her) study of the principle, here are links to a couple of articles that might help start him (or her) on the way: "Suing the Federal Government"; and "A Primer on the Doctrine of Federal Sovereign Immunity".

Second, the principle of sovereign immunity does not foreclose suing the government to challenge the validity or application of a law.

Third, we're here discussing only 42 USC 1983, a federal law that under certain circumstances allows suits for damages against government officials (thus limiting sovereign immunity). Other laws or judicial decisions might limit sovereign immunity (e. g., the Federal Tort Claims Act) in other circumstances, but discussion of those laws in also outside the scope of this thread.

But to return to the subject matter of this thread, the law being discussed, 42 USC 1983, is an example of a conscious erosion by government of sovereign immunity. Again, 42 USC 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, ...

By expressly permitting suits against government personnel when their conduct amounts to a "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws", the statute effectively waives sovereign immunity with respect to that sort of misconduct. And in that way government officials are held accountable for their misdeeds if they deprive one of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."

The case law defining Qualified Immunity under 42 USC 1983 is really about defining what conduct is or is not permissible under the Constitution. It is not about escaping liability for wrongful acts. It's about defining when conduct is wrongful and when it is not.
 
I would argue that QI is about determining that even if there was wrongdoing, the wrongdoing was legally acceptable given the specific circumstances related to the actor's official duties. Immunity is exactly about and only about escaping liability for *some* wrongful acts by recognizing the context in which the acts happened. If the wrongful acts are unreasonably severe or frequent, the offical will not be protected. If the wrongful acts were minor, infrequent, or not reasonably avoidable, then QI legally (and justly, in my opinion) protects the official from liability. If there had been no wrongful act, there would be no need for immunity.

The soreness comes when "the other guy" wins despite the tragic results of the wrongful acts. And if "the other guy" wins by being a more effecive lawyer though the acts were unreasonable, it's even harder to swallow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
I would argue that QI is about...

It really doesn't matter what you would argue qualified immunity is about. Your idiosyncratic perspective on qualified immunity doesn't help understand the law.

What matters is what the courts have told us qualified immunity is about, when and how it applies, and when and how it does not. Qualified immunity is a doctrine fashioned by the courts to decide when to relieve public officials of liability and when to impose liability on public officials.

Spats McGee has based his summary on what the courts have said and what the courts have done.
 
The reason I would argue that which I did is because it is correct.

Incorrect, however, is your analogy equating QI with self defense. Self defense is a justification, meaning that the act was not legally wrongful. QI admits that although the act was legally wrongful, the actor is immune from liability due to the circumstances of the job and the reasonable analysis of the situational facts surrounding the act.
 
The reason I would argue that which I did is because it is correct....
Then cite legal authority supporting your claim.

...Incorrect, however, is your analogy equating QI with self defense. Self defense is a justification, meaning that the act was not legally wrongful. QI admits that although the act was legally wrongful, the actor is immune from liability due to the circumstances of the job and the reasonable analysis of the situational facts surrounding the act.
Aside from the fact that your statement is circular, it's also hogwash.

In a 42 USC 1983 action against an LEO based on alleged excessive force, the question of the reasonableness of the LEO's use of force is related to the necessity of that force in light of a manifest lethal threat to either the officer or others.

So, for example, in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court rejected a claim of qualified immunity noting (at 20-21):
....In reversing, the Court of Appeals accepted the District Court's factual conclusions and held that "the facts, as found, did not justify the use of deadly force." 710 F.2d, at 246. We agree. Officer Hymon could not reasonably have believed that Garner—young, slight, and unarmed—posed any threat. Indeed, Hymon never attempted to justify his actions on any basis other than the need to prevent an escape. The District Court stated in passing that "[t]he facts of this case did not indicate to Officer Hymon that Garner was 'non-dangerous.' " App. to Pet. for Cert. A34. This conclusion is not explained, and seems to be based solely on the fact that Garner had broken into a house at night. However, the fact that Garner was a suspected burglar could not, without regard to the other circumstances, automatically justify the use of deadly force. Hymon did not have probable cause to believe that Garner, whom he correctly believed to be unarmed, posed any physical danger to himself or others....

On the other hand, in Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 193 L. Ed. 2d 255 (2015), the Supreme Court in finding qualified immunity noted (135 S. Ct., at 310):
....This Court has considered excessive force claims in connection with high-speed chases on only two occasions since Brosseau . In Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 127 S.Ct. 1769, the Court held that an officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by ramming the car of a fugitive whose reckless driving "posed an actual and imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians who might have been present, to other civilian motorists, and to the officers involved in the chase." Id., at 384, 127 S.Ct. 1769. And in Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014), the Court reaffirmed Scott by holding that an officer acted reasonably when he fatally shot a fugitive who was "intent on resuming" a chase that "pose[d] a deadly threat for others on the road." 572 U.S., at ––––, 134 S.Ct., at 2022. ....

So in Garner the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for his use of lethal force because he had no basis upon to reasonably believe that the subject posed an imminent lethal threat to the officer or others. On the other hand, in Mullenix the officers involved were entitled to qualified immunity because the use of lethal force could be justified by the actual and imminent danger the subject poses to others.
 
QI does not necessarily admit that an act was wrongful or unconstitutional.

"'The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “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.' Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. The protection of qualified immunity applies regardless of whether the government official's error is 'a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.'" Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009).

It can be that QI will protect an officer when a constitutional violation has occurred, so long as the violation does not transgress a well-established right. It would not be correct to state that it "admits" of a violation, though. To put it in lay terms, the ordinary line of defenses goes something like: (1) There was no constitutional violation; (2) If there was a constitutional violation, it wasn't "clearly established" (when that can fairly be argued); (3) the officer's behavior was reasonable under the circumstances; and (4) (in the case of municipal liability) the behavior wasn't the result of policy, practice or custom, nor the acts of a policymaker.
 
Mr. McGee - an excellent primer. I'm a retired "other guy." For years I represented the sheriff, the constables, and their deputies in a large Texas county in 1983 cases. It was a rewarding and interesting practice.
 
For sure, Cops need good lawyer's more now than anytime in history. I hope many that go into law, go there to aid the Boy's in Blue. Sad to see so many railroaded and used as scapegoats. And I am NOT talking about the Floyd Case so please do not drift there.
 
Last edited:
I hope many that go into law, go there to aid the Boy's in Blue.

I doubt that any go into law with that goal in mind.
I have 1 year of law school left and when I'm finished, I'll aid my client as best I legally can, no matter which side of the law they fall on.
If I'm representing an accused LEO, I'll make the state prove each and every element of their charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all I can promise.

The boys in blue are like everyone else. Mostly good people but obviously all of them aren't.
I don't think the problem is officers being railroaded and used as scapegoats. I'm not saying it never happens, don't think that.
But the problem will not go away until good officers take a stand against bad ones. When the "blue wall of silence" rears its head after an officer does something horrific it hurts the profession and ensures that public perception will do nothing but get worse, and for good cause.

One of the things that they drill into you in law school ethics classes is that the legal field is a self policing profession. You are not only responsible for being ethical in your dealings with clients, but you have a duty to report other lawyers' ethical violations to the disciplinary authority of your state in many instances.
Law enforcement needs to become that as well. But every time an officer reports a fellow officer for using excessive force, they are ostracized and bullied out of their jobs by everyone else. That is the main problem. And until we fix that, it ain't getting any better for the boys in blue.

Thankfully after the George Floyd incident, there has been many more law enforcement agencies come out publicly against police brutality than usual.

Sorry for the rant, I know that isn't the topic of the thread.
 
What about when they're not on duty? What about when they're working off-duty gigs at a downtown nightclub, complete with badge and gun? What about when they're off duty and grocery shopping and they mistakenly think the store is being robbed? There's nowhere near enough detail in your question to determine whether QI would even apply. You really have to get down on a gnat's eye with details in Things Legal.

"The Devil is in the details, but so is salvation."

A favorite quote from Admiral Rickover.

Not being an attorney, and having no real inclination to ever subject myself to the arduous course of dedicated study required to be one, I like to think that I have a fair layman's understanding of certain general legal concepts and rules of thumb.

One rule of thumb is that excerpts from non-judicial sources cannot realistically be used to support or defend a stand on an actual legal basis.

By this, I mean we cannot cite examples we know of only through media sources, second hand reports, and so forth as representative of factual and accurate details and interpretations of events and the law for any given case, nor can we extrapolate from there to legal applicability to other cases.

Even a jury trial that lasts only a day hears and sees details that can't be fully covered outside detailed court records, and the arguments for and against are made by people with training and understanding that took years of education and experience to develope.

Personally, I know enough to know I don't know.

I know the basics behind what QI is, and why it's necessary in the context being discussed here. And that's it.

A law enforcement officer is, by definition, an agent of the government. The LEO is trained and paid to do his job on behalf of the State. If he/she is doing so, within the scope of that training, then QI applies.

Enter the details...and the attorneys to present and argue them.

If a person is going to say QI should be abolished because (reason), then not only does that reason have to be valid within the legal context of QI in the first place, they're also going to have to figure out how to protect the LEO sufficiently enough for the LEO to do the job required.

Because the plain fact of the matter is anybody can be sued at the drop of a hat. If LEOs are not afforded some protection/coverage for this, then there won't be any.
 
....Personally, I know enough to know I don't know....
It took me many a long time to recognize the edges of my knowledge without barreling right past them.

On that note, I'm going to lock this thread. I'm willing to re-open it for general discussions of QI and civil rights litigation, but if anyone has questions or comments that are state-specific, those probably belong in their own threads.
 
...."'The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “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.' Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. The protection of qualified immunity applies regardless of whether the government official's error is 'a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.'" Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009).

It can be that QI will protect an officer when a constitutional violation has occurred, so long as the violation does not transgress a well-established right. It would not be correct to state that it "admits" of a violation, though. To put it in lay terms, the ordinary line of defenses goes something like: (1) There was no constitutional violation; (2) If there was a constitutional violation, it wasn't "clearly established" (when that can fairly be argued); (3) the officer's behavior was reasonable under the circumstances; and (4) (in the case of municipal liability) the behavior wasn't the result of policy, practice or custom, nor the acts of a policymaker.
I started this thread in 2017. It caused some hullaballoo, as lots of people wanted to argue about whether we should have qualified immunity. Whether we should or should not, we do. I'm reopening now because of the SCOTUS decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 2022 WL 2251305 (U.S. June 23, 2022). In particular, SCOTUS announced a new test for 2A cases. As a result, we're likely to see some cases coming up soon in which various state, municipal or county officials will be sued for denial of various firearms permits. I expect those officials to get qualified immunity for a while, because either: (a) they denied the plaintiff's permit prior to the Bruen decision; or (b) the Bruen decision (and the standards announced) will be so recent as related to the denial that it cannot be said that the right (i.e. "to get a permit without 'good or proper cause' being considered") is "clearly established."

If you have questions about litigation or QI, ask away. If this is your first time seeing this thread, you might want to begin at the beginning.
 
I’m going to close this back up. If there’s any significant movement in litigation & anyone thinks they have questions appropriate for this thread, feel free to PM me. I can always re-open this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top