Qualified immunity does not allow assault or murder.
If people don't want to be sued civil they should do a better job first. Removing bs laws that don't regulate anything anyway would be good also.
Laws are meant to be respected not to be dodge because your job is important. Everybody job is.
Sure, but that something isn't criminal law.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/they-get-a-get-out-of-jail...
> “In such cases, when the court declines to establish whether police used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it avoids setting a clearly established precedent for future cases, even for the most egregious acts of police violence,” the report said. “In effect, the same conduct can repeatedly go unpunished.”
> For example, there’s Jessop v. City of Fresno, Calif., in which a pair of businessmen alleged that police officers had stolen some $225,000 in cash and rare coins they had seized while executing search warrants. The officers were deemed entitled to qualified immunity because “at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant.”
In order for police to detain people they need to place them under arrest, which includes Maranda warnings, or have a signed warrant.
We have friendly prosecutors who "could indict a ham sandwich" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_sandwich#Cultural_impact) mysteriously failing to get an indictment to handle the criminal side of it.
An indictment is a motion to proceed to trial, and often doesn't even require the availability or presence of the person. An arrest is a detention of a person to police custody.
QI shields them from civil suits, so they're quite well protected on both fronts.
That is not true. Police can detain you for some period of time without placing you under arrest. You can be detained for “reasonable suspicion” that you were involved in a crime. There are naturally a lot of arguments about what qualifies as reasonable suspicion.
This is why every “know your rights” organization instructs people to ask, “am I being detained? am I free to leave?” when trying to determine their status or end a police encounter. The link below is just one example.
https://www.halt.org/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-sho...
That is a 4th amendment violation. You are free to leave police presence at any time up until they place you under arrest. If you are detained without arrest the remedy is to ask to be arrested. At that point police must arrest you or release you, because any evidence or detention after that point is invalid and invalidate such in the future for the related matter.
Of course an even better answer is to just ask for an attorney, but either way the result is the same.
A traffic stop is a temporary detention without an arrest. You are not free to leave.
Asking for arrest will not help your case, nor will asking for a lawyer.
You can be hauled to jail without charges as well, since most places have a grace period before they file the charges.
That is not a lawful detainment. Out convenience for both parties police can ask a suspect to wait until a warrant arrives so that the police don't have to arrest them. In other words you can offer to leave, but they are going to arrest you anyways otherwise the detainment is completely voluntary.