Who made this rule?! So a court would have to rule on each and every possible abuse of the law by a government official??
Starting with the mid-aughts conservative turn of the Supreme Court (basically the time that O'Connor is replaced by Alito) it has grown to cover pretty much every act that law enforcement takes, with the modern standard being, basically, "your circuit needs to have found this particular violation to be unconstitutional already for it to count." The recent Supreme Court case finding that President's are immune to prosecution for "Official Acts" has a similar philosophical (though not legal) basis.
For example, if a police officer in 1994 arrested someone for violating the Gun Free School Zones act (struck down as unconstitutional in 1995), should they be personally liable for the damages? Should the judge who decided the case?
Similarly, if a police officer in NYC arrested someone in 2018 for violating the ban on "gravity knives" (struck down as unconstitutional in 2019), should they be personally liable?
If a police officer in Washington, DC arrested someone for violating the city's ban on handguns in 2007 (struck down by the Supreme Court in 2008), should they be personally liable?
Would it be a good thing if police officers and officials refuse to enforce Washington state's ban on "assault weapons", or Oregon's magazine capacity limit, because the "conservative turn" of the Supreme Court means that the law might get struck down as unconstitutional, and then they'd be personally liable for the damages?
I think it's clear that QI sometimes leads to bad outcomes, but honestly, I'm not sure how the system would function without some similar concept.
You’re not sure how Colorado could possibly exist?
Yes, police officers will have to deal with more lawsuits, but that's not an outcome that bothers me particularly. Society grants them a great deal of rights to violence that the rest of us do not have, they should likewise face greater scrutiny for their choices, or they are not worthy of holding that responsibility.
Note that Colorado removed QI by law, and made officers personally liable (up to certain limits) and seems to not be any sort of anarchy.
This is not a sliding slope, its just acknowledging police are also just people.
There are cases where it's reasonable for a police officer to enforce a law that turns out to be unconstitutional and there are cases where it's not. Distinguishing between those cases is what the courts are for. Giving officers blanket immunity is not the way to handle it.
Every time I'm out and about, I have to wonder if I'm making some mistake that's going to get me in trouble with the law. Why should police be exempt from this?
we do not allow soldiers to get away with war crimes because of it, why should police be any different?
Not that I’m in favor of any of this, just saying the analogy has diverged from the topic at hand.
often legal by their countries law hence the excuse "i was just following orders/my laws" being similar to cops "following the law" even in the clear face of it being wrong
> Jessop v. City of Fresno: The Ninth Circuit granted immunity to the officers. The court noted that while “the theft” of “personal property by police officers sworn to uphold the law” may be “morally wrong,” the officers could not be sued for the theft because the Ninth Circuit had never issued a decision specifically involving the question of “whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to that warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.”
> Corbitt v. Vickers: ... the court went on to say that “[n]o case capable of clearly establishing the law for this case holds that a temporarily seized person—as was [the child] in this case—suffers a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when an officer shoots at a dog—or any other object—and accidentally hits the person.”
> Kelsay v. Ernst: The majority noted that there were no prior cases involving the “particular circumstances” of this case; that is, no prior cases specifically held that “a deputy was forbidden to use a takedown maneuver to arrest a suspect who ignored the deputy’s instruction to ‘get back here’ and continued to walk away from the officer.”
> Allah v. Milling: The appellate court agreed that the prison guards violated Allah’s rights, specifically holding that this treatment was unlawful punishment because Allah’s treatment “cannot be said to be reasonably related to institutional security, and Defendants have identified no other legitimate governmental purpose justifying the placement.” Nevertheless, the court said the guards were entitled to immunity because there was no prior case concerning the particular disciplinary practice employed by the prison.
It's basically judicial Calvinball. "Oh, established case law says you can't kill an innocent person at 6:35pm, but it's not clearly established you can't kill an innocent person at 6:36pm!"
This is the trick that courts use in qualified immunity cases. You can't just say "well obviously this is a violation of 4th amendment rights by any person's plain reading." You need a prior case where a judge found this specifically. And that prior case needs to match the facts of the current case basically exactly. Any minor difference can be leveraged to argue that this case is a new set of facts and that there is no prior case that would inform a cop that what they are doing is in fact a violation of rights and so they are immune from civil action.
The outcome of each one of these cases is that the cop gets off scot free and the court says "the next time this specific thing happens under our jurisdiction you can sue" but that specific thing never happens again for the rest of time because the boundaries of that specific thing are so tight.
How far can you take the "precise case" thing then? Does it just apply to the specific action that was done? How far can they legally stretch what's considered to be "novel"?
For us mere mortals to be punished, we don't even have to know the law. For a cop to be punished, there has to be precedent. The funny part is that this situation basically means the first cop to do any illegal act will always get away with it.