4 ms·

Not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the original doctrine of qualified immunity was designed to shield law enforcement acting in good faith from frivolous law

Not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the original doctrine of qualified immunity was designed to shield law enforcement acting in good faith from frivolous lawsuits. But it's morphed into . . . this.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
palunon 2y ago
No, it was designed to shield law enforcement officers violating the Ku Klux Klan Act from legitimate lawsuits. See [1], which is the case where it started. Qualified immunity is only relevant when the lawsuit is not frivolous anyway... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray
ikanreed 2y ago
Part of me wonders whether it is sincerely possible to violate someone's constitutional rights "in good faith". I feel like being a functional police officer should entail knowing the limits on your power, in the same way you're obligated to know what laws you're actually enforcing.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Part of me wonders whether it is sincerely possible to violate someone's constitutional rights "in good faith". Person running down the sidewalk pursued by someone shouting "stop, thief!" gets tackled by a cop and cuffed. Turns out to be mistaken identity or they'd done self-checkout. Rights violation? Yes. Good faith? Also, yes.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > Person running down the sidewalk pursued by someone shouting "stop, thief!" gets tackled by a cop and cuffed. Turns out to be mistaken identity or they'd done self-checkout. Not sure that'd be a rights violation. The cop would be able to say they had reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed justifying the detention. Excessive force is a possibility depending on the details, such as the extent of the injuries that resulted from being forced to the ground or if the cop ordered the runner to stop before tackling them.
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      I think steelmanning the arguments for QI is that that's what it's for. Cop can't be sued for excessive force in that scenario. Of course, in reality it's moved well beyond that into the realm of absurdity.
- gs17 2y ago
  > in the same way you're obligated to know what laws you're actually enforcing. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for civilians, police aren't held to the same standard.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  Disagree. It's very easy to do it in good faith--you have been given some incorrect piece of information that makes you think you're within the law. Somebody transposed some digits, you hit the wrong house. That being said, there's no justification for sharing the nudes. Doesn't matter if you have a warrant, that's still wrong.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

palunon 2y ago

No, it was designed to shield law enforcement officers violating the Ku Klux Klan Act from legitimate lawsuits. See [1], which is the case where it started. Qualified immunity is only relevant when the lawsuit is not frivolous anyway... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray

ikanreed 2y ago

Part of me wonders whether it is sincerely possible to violate someone's constitutional rights "in good faith". I feel like being a functional police officer should entail knowing the limits on your power, in the same way you're obligated to know what laws you're actually enforcing.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> Part of me wonders whether it is sincerely possible to violate someone's constitutional rights "in good faith". Person running down the sidewalk pursued by someone shouting "stop, thief!" gets tackled by a cop and cuffed. Turns out to be mistaken identity or they'd done self-checkout. Rights violation? Yes. Good faith? Also, yes.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > Person running down the sidewalk pursued by someone shouting "stop, thief!" gets tackled by a cop and cuffed. Turns out to be mistaken identity or they'd done self-checkout. Not sure that'd be a rights violation. The cop would be able to say they had reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed justifying the detention. Excessive force is a possibility depending on the details, such as the extent of the injuries that resulted from being forced to the ground or if the cop ordered the runner to stop before tackling them.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    I think steelmanning the arguments for QI is that that's what it's for. Cop can't be sued for excessive force in that scenario. Of course, in reality it's moved well beyond that into the realm of absurdity.
gs17 2y ago
> in the same way you're obligated to know what laws you're actually enforcing. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for civilians, police aren't held to the same standard.
LorenPechtel 2y ago
Disagree. It's very easy to do it in good faith--you have been given some incorrect piece of information that makes you think you're within the law. Somebody transposed some digits, you hit the wrong house. That being said, there's no justification for sharing the nudes. Doesn't matter if you have a warrant, that's still wrong.