Qualified immunity
| Police hiring, training, and discipline |
|---|
|
| • Police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) • Ballotpedia CBA dashboard •Reform proposals •CBA areas of inquiry and disagreement •Arguments about police collective bargaining • Index of articles about criminal justice policy |
| Click here for more analysis of police hiring, training, and disciplinary requirements by state and city on Ballotpedia |
Qualified immunity is a type of legal protection that aims to shield a law enforcement officer from lawsuits alleging they violated a civilian's constitutional rights. Qualified immunity protects an officer only in cases where the prosecution can prove the officer clearly violated an individual's statutory or constitutional right.[1]
Background
Congress in 1871 enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as part of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, which was one of a series of three laws designed to help combat lawlessness and civil rights violations in the South following the Civil War. The law mandated that government employees, officials, and officers be personally liable if they violate a civilian's constitutional rights. The law spurred debate over the concept of qualified immunity, though few government officials were successful in challenging the law in court, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.[2][3]
The U.S. Supreme Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity as a legal defense in the 1967 case Pierson v. Ray. The case concerned several police officers who had arrested civilians under an anti-loitering law that violated the First Amendment. The court found that the officers should not be prosecuted for their conduct because they acted in good faith. Ray thus created the precedent that qualified immunity was only a legitimate legal defense if it could be proven that the government officials were acting in good faith. However, in the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the court held that federal government officials are entitled to qualified immunity as a legal defense as long as they are not violating a clearly established law. Fitzgerald eliminated the good faith precedent and required that, in order to challenge qualified immunity, the prosecution must prove an officer clearly violated an individual's constitutional rights.[1][2]
See also
- Police hiring, training, and disciplinary requirements by state and city
- States and cities with police union agreements
Footnotes
| |||||||||||||||||
