4 ms·

This is exactly right. And even in many many cases where they have been shown to know they were actually violating it they have immunity too.

by rnk 4y ago

eYrKEC2 4y ago
It's better than that. They can even NOT BE A POLICE OFFICER, then act like a police officer, and then get qualified immunity. https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-case-of-government-engineer-who-acted-like-a-police-officer-got-qualified-immunity-anyway/ https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-c... Out. Of. Control.
- rnk 4y ago
  Okay, that's absurd even to cynical me. Pretend to be a cop and have qualified immunity?
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    Does this mean I get qualified immunity too? I'm not pretending to be a cop but I think I should get it. This court will probably agree with me. Maybe all Americans should have qualified immunity!
    - rnk 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - weard_beard 4y ago
        Actually you need to be a government employee too.
- corndoge 4y ago
  I don't see anything in this article that indicates that the government official in question received qualified immunity because they acted like a police officer. It seems they already had it as part of their own job. Correct if wrong.
  - pavon 4y ago
    That is correct, but qualified immunity is supposed to apply to government officials acting withing the scope of their official responsibilities. We emphasize that our decision applies only to suits for civil damages arising from actions within the scope of an official's duties and in "objective" good faith. - Harlow v. Fitzgerald [1] For the courts to uphold that impersonating a police officer (which is a felony!) is with the scope of an engineer's duties is absurd. [1]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/#F34 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/#F34
    - zuminator 4y ago
      Part of that is that we're being misled by this whole 'impersonated a police officer' spin. He didn't pull the trucks over and say, "I'm a cop! You're under arrest." Rather, he claimed (and presumably believed) that he possessed, as a highway engineer, the authority to detain trucks that were violating a statute. Consider, in carrying out his official dutues, he has some degree of discretion in doing so. For example, some engineers might decide the best tool for their job that day is a slide rule. Others might decide on a given day to use an autoleveling level. And some, particularly Mr. Large, might decide on exercising the "detain trucks that are interfering with road work" provision. It turned out there was no such provision, and Large's job didn't have the authority to detain vehicles. But the absence of a statute specifically forbidding state employees (other than police officers) to detain trucks meant that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Keep in mind that QI doesn't mean that the injured party isn't entitled to damages at all, it just means they have to sue the state and not individual officers/officials. Of course, suing the state has its own hurdles. Some government bodies have very short statutes of limitations for filing lawsuits against them, and they must receive advance notice before the claim can even commence. And the claim might need to be filed in a special court. And the state may be protected from liability if it had no advance knowledge of a condition, or by a statute limiting the amount of damages.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > "And some, particularly Mr. Large, might decide on exercising the "detain trucks that are interfering with road work" provision. It turned out there was no such provision" If I make that mistake as an ordinary Joe, how much time would I spend in jail?
- cvoss 4y ago
  Why do you believe that qualified immunity only applies to police officers? I won't pretend to be an expert---today being the first day I've read about it---but, the very first Wikipedia article I read about the topic discusses qualified immunity w.r.t. "government officials", not "officers", which is a much bigger category of people. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
  - olliej 4y ago
    QI typically comes up in the context of police officers, so people don't understand the QI was extended from legislators, etc to police officers despite no legislative basis for such.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - runnerup 4y ago
    Teachers and school administrators also have qualified immmunity. They just tend to get fired when they egregiously screw up!
    - kmonsen 4y ago
      I think this is part of it, police officers have the double-whammy of QI and the police unions protecting them from any consequence.
      - runnerup 4y ago
        It's interesting that teacher unions dont seem to have the same degree of absolute power.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        People are scared of crime, they usually aren't scared of students (unless the students are black, they put cops in those schools to arrest kids ofc)
ElfinTrousers 4y ago
Which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. I've thought for a long time that, if a cop is convicted as a crime, the simple fact that they are a cop should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing, and even more harshly if the offense had any hint of abuse of their legal authority.
- thecrash 4y ago
  This makes sense in principle, but in practice police cannot both carefully adhere to the law and serve their intended function. Police are expected to be the security force of the powerful and influential against society's undesirables. If cops were required to strictly obey the law, they would be much less effective at this job. Most officers would understandably opt simply not to get involved in situations which might lead to someone's rights being violated. If the powerful want a force which is willing to knock heads for them, they need to assure that force it will not be held responsible for the mess it makes along the way.
  - BarryMilo 4y ago
    Ergo the difference between official and actual purpose
  - interactivecode 4y ago
    In civilized countries the police should have rules for how to act under certain conditions. For example how to de-escalate and then it’s allowed to drive through a red stoplight. In those countries if a police officer would drive through a red light without reason the should get a fine, suspension or other consequences. And I agree with an earlier commenter, since they should be extremely aware if the rules and boundaries, violations should be punished stricter.
  - magicalist 4y ago
    You say "but in practice..." but then proceed to handwave generalities. For instance, are you arguing we can preemptively say they don't have to follow any law on the off chance one of them might come up in the performance of their duties? It sounds an awful lot like you are, and there's essentially no "in practice" evidence to motivate that.

This is exactly right. And even in many many cases where they have been shown to know they were actually violating it they have immunity too.

by rnk 4y ago

This is exactly right. And even in many many cases where they have been shown to know they were actually violating it they have immunity too.

eYrKEC2 4y ago

It's better than that. They can even NOT BE A POLICE OFFICER, then act like a police officer, and then get qualified immunity. https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-case-of-government-engineer-who-acted-like-a-police-officer-got-qualified-immunity-anyway/ https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-c... Out. Of. Control.

rnk 4y ago
Okay, that's absurd even to cynical me. Pretend to be a cop and have qualified immunity?
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Does this mean I get qualified immunity too? I'm not pretending to be a cop but I think I should get it. This court will probably agree with me. Maybe all Americans should have qualified immunity!
  - rnk 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - weard_beard 4y ago
      Actually you need to be a government employee too.
corndoge 4y ago
I don't see anything in this article that indicates that the government official in question received qualified immunity because they acted like a police officer. It seems they already had it as part of their own job. Correct if wrong.
- pavon 4y ago
  That is correct, but qualified immunity is supposed to apply to government officials acting withing the scope of their official responsibilities. We emphasize that our decision applies only to suits for civil damages arising from actions within the scope of an official's duties and in "objective" good faith. - Harlow v. Fitzgerald [1] For the courts to uphold that impersonating a police officer (which is a felony!) is with the scope of an engineer's duties is absurd. [1]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/#F34 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/#F34
  - zuminator 4y ago
    Part of that is that we're being misled by this whole 'impersonated a police officer' spin. He didn't pull the trucks over and say, "I'm a cop! You're under arrest." Rather, he claimed (and presumably believed) that he possessed, as a highway engineer, the authority to detain trucks that were violating a statute. Consider, in carrying out his official dutues, he has some degree of discretion in doing so. For example, some engineers might decide the best tool for their job that day is a slide rule. Others might decide on a given day to use an autoleveling level. And some, particularly Mr. Large, might decide on exercising the "detain trucks that are interfering with road work" provision. It turned out there was no such provision, and Large's job didn't have the authority to detain vehicles. But the absence of a statute specifically forbidding state employees (other than police officers) to detain trucks meant that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Keep in mind that QI doesn't mean that the injured party isn't entitled to damages at all, it just means they have to sue the state and not individual officers/officials. Of course, suing the state has its own hurdles. Some government bodies have very short statutes of limitations for filing lawsuits against them, and they must receive advance notice before the claim can even commence. And the claim might need to be filed in a special court. And the state may be protected from liability if it had no advance knowledge of a condition, or by a statute limiting the amount of damages.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > "And some, particularly Mr. Large, might decide on exercising the "detain trucks that are interfering with road work" provision. It turned out there was no such provision" If I make that mistake as an ordinary Joe, how much time would I spend in jail?
cvoss 4y ago
Why do you believe that qualified immunity only applies to police officers? I won't pretend to be an expert---today being the first day I've read about it---but, the very first Wikipedia article I read about the topic discusses qualified immunity w.r.t. "government officials", not "officers", which is a much bigger category of people. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
- olliej 4y ago
  QI typically comes up in the context of police officers, so people don't understand the QI was extended from legislators, etc to police officers despite no legislative basis for such.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- runnerup 4y ago
  Teachers and school administrators also have qualified immmunity. They just tend to get fired when they egregiously screw up!
  - kmonsen 4y ago
    I think this is part of it, police officers have the double-whammy of QI and the police unions protecting them from any consequence.
    - runnerup 4y ago
      It's interesting that teacher unions dont seem to have the same degree of absolute power.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        People are scared of crime, they usually aren't scared of students (unless the students are black, they put cops in those schools to arrest kids ofc)

ElfinTrousers 4y ago

Which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. I've thought for a long time that, if a cop is convicted as a crime, the simple fact that they are a cop should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing, and even more harshly if the offense had any hint of abuse of their legal authority.

thecrash 4y ago
This makes sense in principle, but in practice police cannot both carefully adhere to the law and serve their intended function. Police are expected to be the security force of the powerful and influential against society's undesirables. If cops were required to strictly obey the law, they would be much less effective at this job. Most officers would understandably opt simply not to get involved in situations which might lead to someone's rights being violated. If the powerful want a force which is willing to knock heads for them, they need to assure that force it will not be held responsible for the mess it makes along the way.
- BarryMilo 4y ago
  Ergo the difference between official and actual purpose
- interactivecode 4y ago
  In civilized countries the police should have rules for how to act under certain conditions. For example how to de-escalate and then it’s allowed to drive through a red stoplight. In those countries if a police officer would drive through a red light without reason the should get a fine, suspension or other consequences. And I agree with an earlier commenter, since they should be extremely aware if the rules and boundaries, violations should be punished stricter.
- magicalist 4y ago
  You say "but in practice..." but then proceed to handwave generalities. For instance, are you arguing we can preemptively say they don't have to follow any law on the off chance one of them might come up in the performance of their duties? It sounds an awful lot like you are, and there's essentially no "in practice" evidence to motivate that.