5 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, but I think qualified immunity should not apply to constitutional violations. Giving an opt-out for those violations is antithetical to the ve

I'm not a lawyer, but I think qualified immunity should not apply to constitutional violations. Giving an opt-out for those violations is antithetical to the very substance of our (US) constitution.

jazzypants 5mo ago
Qualified Immunity should not apply ever. Period. No one should be above the law for any reason ever.
- pdpi 5mo ago
  Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive. The issue isn't qualified immunity itself, but rather the maximalist interpretation that seems pervasive in the US justice system, and the overwhelmingly broad definition of "honest mistake" that seemingly applies to the police, and the police alone.
  - jazzypants 5mo ago
    I think you would find that they would make far fewer illegal mistakes if they actually had to deal with the consequences of those mistakes. Qualified Immunity didn't exist as a concept until the 1960s, and it was put in place to shield policemen enacting racist policies and corrupt cronies of Nixon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - hk1337 5mo ago
      I think we would see far fewer actions at all for fear of being sued.
      - jazzypants 5mo ago
        They could just buy insurance. You know, like doctors, lawyers, and a wide variety of other professionals that deal with liabilities in their field. Regardless, the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.
        drbscl 5mo ago
        > They could just buy insurance. > the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers. I fail to see how this would change anything other than increasing taxpayer costs further in the form of insurance profit margin.
        infinite_spin 5mo ago
        Malpractice insurance might increase the cost of policing, but I'd wager the malpractice itself is costing tax payers even more.
        JuniperMesos 5mo ago
        I'm not necessarily opposed to requiring something like malpractice insurance for being a cop, but I'm genuinely not sure how that would affect the cost of policing compared to the status quo (and I'd be skeptical of any research attempt to estimate it without actually trying it). But I'm also not necessarily opposed to spending more taxpayer money on policing in return for better policing.
        vajrabum 5mo ago
        Make the police officer like the Doctor pay for their own insurance.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
        The doctor's own fees just rise. You, the patient pays for it. There's this 10-20% of revenue parasite on the entire industry, and you're paying that while complaining that prices are too high. Now you'll do the same thing with police, as if police wages and salaries won't increase proportionally, but 20 years from now you'll wonder why that costs so much. It's bizarre how economically imperceptive everyone is.
  - mpalmer 5mo ago
    Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive. Your own usage of "honest mistake" is overwhelmingly broad, so it's not at all clear what alternative definition of qualified immunity you are advocating.
  - wvenable 5mo ago
    "Doctors and nurses will make mistakes in performing medicine. Making those doctors and nurses personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive." How many other jobs can we apply this to?
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      And does it apply to, say, my tax returns?
      - jshier 5mo ago
        Generally, yes. If you make a mistake in your return, the IRS is perfectly happy to accept an amended return, and you pay (or get paid) the difference (perhaps with a penalty fee). They usually only go after you criminally if they think you committed fraud.
      - Terr_ 5mo ago
        AFAIK the IRS has historically been more, er, disinterestedly nitpicky as opposed to disproportionately vindictive. More "you say X we say Y here's your options you are Z days over with a W% rate", rather than "Ah hah! $50 dollars error, time to make an example outta this poor bastard."
  - isityettime 5mo ago
    > Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive. Or maybe police training should be longer than a coding bootcamp... in some countries, police work is an undergraduate major and the programs are quite competitive. Similarly, there are countries without qualified immunity as a policy, and it doesn't seem to fundamentally undermine policework there.
  - wildzzz 5mo ago
    Where I work, we follow quality management systems to ensure mistakes don't happen. Of course they do, people are human, but the point is to find why something happened and enact a corrective action to ensure it doesn't happen again. Is it a personnel problem that requires more training? Do procedures need to be updated to cover something new? Do we need new tools? Sometimes it really does boil down to a personnel issue where someone has been instructed, trained, and given all of the tools they need yet they still error. That's when management steps in and either transfers or fires them. That same system needs to be applied to police. When camera phones came out, suddenly cops were faced with people recording them. We have had many lawsuits where the cops have been told that people are allowed to film them and there are plenty of department manuals that state the same. At this point, a cop should never have the excuse of qualified immunity for violating someone's right to film because how much it's been harped on and any that do should be personally liable.
  - girvo 5mo ago
    Other jobs don’t require this kind of shield. Instead, they require insurance. Qualified immunity isn’t qualified, and it’s a horrific distorting function on your society, as officers get to act with impunity. They’re given more and more power, and less and less responsibility.
  - Nasrudith 5mo ago
    We should have the exact opposite of qualified immunity - committing a crime under the color of authority as a serious felony in itself.
  - joquarky 5mo ago
    Require them to get liability insurance like other important professions.
balderdash 5mo ago
yup, i think a majority of people would agree with you, so why hasn't it happened? I think the answer is that elected representatives are more beholden to public sector unions than their constituents.
- estearum 5mo ago
  Texas: Famously pro-union
  - balderdash 5mo ago
    yeah texas is definitely not pro-union - except that the only public sector unions that are allowed are for police and firemen... with Texas police unions contributing the the 3rd highest amount to politicians (behind CA and NY) - so its a real thing. https://www.pelrb.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Public-Sector-Collective-Bargaining-by-State.pdf https://www.pelrb.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Public-S... https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend-millions-lobbying-to-retain-their-sway-over-big-us-cities-and-state-governments/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend...
    - estearum 5mo ago
      That’s called being pro-police
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
jopsen 5mo ago
It's weird to me that courts don't at-least attempt to review if the conduct was in good faith and plausibly reasonable given the facts know at the time. The idea that officials aren't personally liable for mistakes made in good faith isn't bad. But somehow the US tends to produce a lot of cases where good faith requires a lot of faith :)
- Gibbon1 5mo ago
  You would think using your office to file false charges against someone would be corruption just like using your office to embezzle money.
cortesoft 5mo ago
It literally is not supposed to. The ruling that is currently used for the precedent is Harlow v Fitzgerald, which states: > The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." It seems to me that a reasonable person would know this violates constitutional rights if you arrest people that criticize the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_v._Fitzgerald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_v._Fitzgerald
- underlipton 5mo ago
  Qualified immunity shouldn't even be a thing at all, as far as state and local officials are concerned. It was a "mistake" (emphasis on the quotes). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-imm...
pfdietz 5mo ago
The problem with that is sometimes it's not clear if something is a constitutional violation. Here, it was clear, but in general you don't want to do that. Something that should be exempt from qualified immunity are actions that go against court orders.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think qualified immunity should not apply to constitutional violations. Giving an opt-out for those violations is antithetical to the very substance of our (US) constitution.

jazzypants 5mo ago

Qualified Immunity should not apply ever. Period. No one should be above the law for any reason ever.

pdpi 5mo ago
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive. The issue isn't qualified immunity itself, but rather the maximalist interpretation that seems pervasive in the US justice system, and the overwhelmingly broad definition of "honest mistake" that seemingly applies to the police, and the police alone.
- jazzypants 5mo ago
  I think you would find that they would make far fewer illegal mistakes if they actually had to deal with the consequences of those mistakes. Qualified Immunity didn't exist as a concept until the 1960s, and it was put in place to shield policemen enacting racist policies and corrupt cronies of Nixon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hk1337 5mo ago
    I think we would see far fewer actions at all for fear of being sued.
    - jazzypants 5mo ago
      They could just buy insurance. You know, like doctors, lawyers, and a wide variety of other professionals that deal with liabilities in their field. Regardless, the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.
      - drbscl 5mo ago
        > They could just buy insurance. > the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers. I fail to see how this would change anything other than increasing taxpayer costs further in the form of insurance profit margin.
        infinite_spin 5mo ago
        Malpractice insurance might increase the cost of policing, but I'd wager the malpractice itself is costing tax payers even more.
        JuniperMesos 5mo ago
        I'm not necessarily opposed to requiring something like malpractice insurance for being a cop, but I'm genuinely not sure how that would affect the cost of policing compared to the status quo (and I'd be skeptical of any research attempt to estimate it without actually trying it). But I'm also not necessarily opposed to spending more taxpayer money on policing in return for better policing.
        vajrabum 5mo ago
        Make the police officer like the Doctor pay for their own insurance.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
        The doctor's own fees just rise. You, the patient pays for it. There's this 10-20% of revenue parasite on the entire industry, and you're paying that while complaining that prices are too high. Now you'll do the same thing with police, as if police wages and salaries won't increase proportionally, but 20 years from now you'll wonder why that costs so much. It's bizarre how economically imperceptive everyone is.
- mpalmer 5mo ago
  Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive. Your own usage of "honest mistake" is overwhelmingly broad, so it's not at all clear what alternative definition of qualified immunity you are advocating.
- wvenable 5mo ago
  "Doctors and nurses will make mistakes in performing medicine. Making those doctors and nurses personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive." How many other jobs can we apply this to?
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    And does it apply to, say, my tax returns?
    - jshier 5mo ago
      Generally, yes. If you make a mistake in your return, the IRS is perfectly happy to accept an amended return, and you pay (or get paid) the difference (perhaps with a penalty fee). They usually only go after you criminally if they think you committed fraud.
    - Terr_ 5mo ago
      AFAIK the IRS has historically been more, er, disinterestedly nitpicky as opposed to disproportionately vindictive. More "you say X we say Y here's your options you are Z days over with a W% rate", rather than "Ah hah! $50 dollars error, time to make an example outta this poor bastard."
- isityettime 5mo ago
  > Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive. Or maybe police training should be longer than a coding bootcamp... in some countries, police work is an undergraduate major and the programs are quite competitive. Similarly, there are countries without qualified immunity as a policy, and it doesn't seem to fundamentally undermine policework there.
- wildzzz 5mo ago
  Where I work, we follow quality management systems to ensure mistakes don't happen. Of course they do, people are human, but the point is to find why something happened and enact a corrective action to ensure it doesn't happen again. Is it a personnel problem that requires more training? Do procedures need to be updated to cover something new? Do we need new tools? Sometimes it really does boil down to a personnel issue where someone has been instructed, trained, and given all of the tools they need yet they still error. That's when management steps in and either transfers or fires them. That same system needs to be applied to police. When camera phones came out, suddenly cops were faced with people recording them. We have had many lawsuits where the cops have been told that people are allowed to film them and there are plenty of department manuals that state the same. At this point, a cop should never have the excuse of qualified immunity for violating someone's right to film because how much it's been harped on and any that do should be personally liable.
- girvo 5mo ago
  Other jobs don’t require this kind of shield. Instead, they require insurance. Qualified immunity isn’t qualified, and it’s a horrific distorting function on your society, as officers get to act with impunity. They’re given more and more power, and less and less responsibility.
- Nasrudith 5mo ago
  We should have the exact opposite of qualified immunity - committing a crime under the color of authority as a serious felony in itself.
- joquarky 5mo ago
  Require them to get liability insurance like other important professions.

balderdash 5mo ago

yup, i think a majority of people would agree with you, so why hasn't it happened? I think the answer is that elected representatives are more beholden to public sector unions than their constituents.

estearum 5mo ago
Texas: Famously pro-union
- balderdash 5mo ago
  yeah texas is definitely not pro-union - except that the only public sector unions that are allowed are for police and firemen... with Texas police unions contributing the the 3rd highest amount to politicians (behind CA and NY) - so its a real thing. https://www.pelrb.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Public-Sector-Collective-Bargaining-by-State.pdf https://www.pelrb.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Public-S... https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend-millions-lobbying-to-retain-their-sway-over-big-us-cities-and-state-governments/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend...
  - estearum 5mo ago
    That’s called being pro-police
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]

jopsen 5mo ago

It's weird to me that courts don't at-least attempt to review if the conduct was in good faith and plausibly reasonable given the facts know at the time. The idea that officials aren't personally liable for mistakes made in good faith isn't bad. But somehow the US tends to produce a lot of cases where good faith requires a lot of faith :)

Gibbon1 5mo ago
You would think using your office to file false charges against someone would be corruption just like using your office to embezzle money.

cortesoft 5mo ago

It literally is not supposed to. The ruling that is currently used for the precedent is Harlow v Fitzgerald, which states: > The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." It seems to me that a reasonable person would know this violates constitutional rights if you arrest people that criticize the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_v._Fitzgerald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_v._Fitzgerald

underlipton 5mo ago
Qualified immunity shouldn't even be a thing at all, as far as state and local officials are concerned. It was a "mistake" (emphasis on the quotes). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-imm...

pfdietz 5mo ago

The problem with that is sometimes it's not clear if something is a constitutional violation. Here, it was clear, but in general you don't want to do that. Something that should be exempt from qualified immunity are actions that go against court orders.