Qualified Immunity

A Study of What Police Know About Court Decisions Exposes 'Qualified Immunity's Boldest Lie'

The Supreme Court's notion of "fair notice," which it says requires blocking many civil rights lawsuits, is based on a demonstrably false assumption.

|

In two cases it decided last fall and last winter, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that it might be prepared to limit the scope of qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields police officers and other government officials from federal liability for violating people's constitutional rights unless the alleged misconduct ran afoul of "clearly established" law. In two decisions issued last week, by contrast, the Court complicated the puzzle of how plaintiffs can hope to satisfy that test.

The Court reaffirmed its prior statement that qualified immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law"—a standard that excludes all manner of outrageous abuses. Worse, the justices twice suggested, in a decision from which none of them dissented, that lawsuits under 42 USC 1983, which allows people to seek damages for violations of their rights, may be barred even when the appeals court for the circuit in which a case is filed has previously concluded that conduct very similar to the defendant's was unconstitutional.

"Even assuming that controlling Circuit precedent clearly establishes law for purposes of §1983," the Court said in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, the 9th Circuit decision cited by the plaintiff "did not give fair notice" to the officer he sued. "Even assuming that Circuit precedent can clearly establish law for purposes of §1983," the Court reiterated later in the same opinion, the earlier case "is materially distinguishable and thus does not govern the facts of this case." Those opening clauses imply that "fair notice" might require a decision in which the Supreme Court itself addressed nearly identical facts, which would make an already formidable obstacle nearly impossible to overcome.

Whether or not the Court follows through on that alarming implication, the very notion of "fair notice" to police officers is based on what UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz calls "qualified immunity's boldest lie": the assumption that cops keep abreast of relevant case law, such that they would know when their actions closely resemble conduct that was previously deemed unconstitutional. Schwartz's research, which she reported last May in The University of Chicago Law Review, documents a yawning gap between that implausible assumption and the reality of how cops are actually trained.

"Nowhere in the Court's decisions is consideration given to how, exactly, police officers are expected to learn about the facts and holdings of the hundreds—if not thousands—of Supreme Court, circuit court, and district court opinions that could be used to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes," Schwartz notes. "Nor has much consideration been given to the likelihood that police officers recall the facts and holdings of these hundreds or thousands of cases as they are making split-second decisions about whether to stop and frisk someone, search a car, or shoot their gun."

Schwartz examined "hundreds of use-of-force policies, trainings, and other educational materials received by California law enforcement officers." She found that the information in these materials was generally limited to the broad principles laid out in major Supreme Court rulings—principles that the Court has said are not sufficient to show that an officer's alleged conduct violated "clearly established" law.

In the 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner, for example, the Court held that police may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only if it is necessary to prevent his escape and there is probable cause to believe he poses a significant threat of violence to officers or the general public. In the 1989 case Graham v. Connor, the Court said the use of force by police must be "objectively reasonable," a determination that "requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

While "police departments regularly inform their officers about watershed decisions like Graham and Garner," Schwartz found, "officers are not regularly or reliably informed about court decisions interpreting those decisions in different factual scenarios—the very types of decisions that are necessary to clearly establish the law about the constitutionality of uses of force." That conclusion is based partly on Schwartz's examination of California police department policy manuals, which "reference or incorporate the constitutional standards from Graham and Garner,
but rarely reference any cases in which Graham and Garner were applied."

Schwartz also read 329 police "training outlines" and found that more than three-quarters "referenced no court decision applying Graham and/or Garner." Even when such decisions were mentioned, "the outlines suggest that trainers do not educate officers about their facts and holdings." And while police training does "incorporate hypotheticals as a way to help officers develop an understanding about whether force is appropriate in various scenarios," the outlines "offer no indication that these scenarios are drawn from court cases." Schwartz found little evidence that prosecutors or newsletters were filling this gap in police knowledge.

"Even if law enforcement relied more heavily on court decisions to educate their officers about the constitutional limits of force, the expectations of notice and reliance baked into qualified immunity doctrine would still be unrealistic," Schwartz writes. "There could never be sufficient time to train officers about the hundreds—
if not thousands—of court cases that could clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. Moreover, even if an officer did somehow come to learn about the facts and holdings of court decisions applying Graham and Garner, there is no reason to believe that an officer would think about those cases during the types of high-speed, high-stress interactions that often lead to uses of force."

Given this reality, Schwartz says, it "makes no sense to require plaintiffs to plumb the depths of Westlaw for factually similar lower court decisions as proof that officers were on notice of the unconstitutionality of their conduct." Because that requirement is based on a plainly erroneous premise, she says, it "does not advance the stated goals of qualified immunity."

If police cannot reasonably be expected to absorb the information that the Supreme Court has said is necessary for "fair notice," defenders of qualified immunity might conclude, maybe they need even more protection from liability. But if this kind of detailed knowledge really is necessary to prevent officers from violating people's rights, shouldn't the police departments that routinely fail to impart it be liable for the resulting abuses? And if their current approach is sound, what does that say about the Court's insistence on highly specific precedents as a condition for suing police under 42 USC 1983?

Without qualified immunity, courts would be free to decide whether an officer's conduct violated the principles established by cases like Graham and Garner, even if no one had previously been held to account for doing exactly the same thing. That approach would not result in ruinous personal liability for police officers, because (as Schwartz also has shown) cops are routinely indemnified even when they lose civil rights cases. But letting such cases proceed would improve accountability, allow victims of police abuse to seek compensation, and help clarify constitutional issues that currently go unresolved.

"Because courts can grant officers qualified immunity simply because plaintiffs cannot find a prior similar case, qualified immunity can deny relief to plaintiffs whose constitutional rights have been violated and can shield officers from liability even when they have behaved maliciously or recklessly," Schwartz notes. She concludes that courts should stop "sending the message to officers that they can 'shoot first and think later' and sending the message to people that their rights do not matter."

NEXT: It Sure Looks Like Democrats Don’t Have the Votes To Raise Enough Taxes To Pay for Their Massive Spending Bill

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

24 responses to “A Study of What Police Know About Court Decisions Exposes 'Qualified Immunity's Boldest Lie'

  1. Of course police don't scan the hundreds of federal decisions for identical fact patterns. This, like much else in the law, is built on a falsehood -- "constructive knowledge." The flaw here is that there is no reason to think that police need to wait for a court to decide an exact fact pattern before knowing something is wrong. George Costanza, "is it wrong to have sex with the cleaning lady on my desk? Because if I had ANY IDEA that kind of thing was frowned upon....."

    1. We also have too many laws.

      1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

        So I started........ Visit Here

        1. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.To You don’t need to invest YES anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

          Go Here.............CASH APP

    2. It is like the case in California a few years ago where officers are searching a home and STEAL cash that they find there. They get qualified immunity when they are sued over it. In what universe can a police office claim that stealing someone else's property is something that he did not know was against the law? At the very least, the officers involved should have been fired and barred from ever holding any law enforcement job ever again. Someone like that should not be a guard a landfill. It is just insane.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/09/17/federal-court-cops-accused-of-stealing-over-225000-have-legal-immunity/

      And if people can look at stories like that and say that qualified immunity is required for police to do their jobs, we have some serious education to do.

    3. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.RXq You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

      Go Here..............Earn App

  2. How educated do you have to be to not know this? I know it's odd to say, but it seems one of our most educated professions makes the most illogical and bonkers decisions sometimes because they not only can't see the forest for the trees, but can't see the trees because of these green things that are in the way.

    Let's go with something reasonable. A two-tiered approach, similar to baseball's strikes vs balls.

    There are legal things that cops can do.
    There are things that are clearly against the law. These should be punished.
    Then, there are things that are marginal or novel (is infrared sensing of a house a search or not? Is a broken taillight sufficient to pull a car over?). When there is genuine uncertainty or rushed judgement makes the actions reasonably understandable, these should be decided in the favor of the defendant, but the officer should not punished.

    Isn't that, after all, the rationale behind qualified immunity in the first place?

    1. Isn't that, after all, the rationale behind qualified immunity in the first place?

      The rationale is near total deference to the wishes of the bureaucratic state. The same thing happened with race preferences where the SC created an exception to the constitution because the bureaucratic management claimed it is a good idea.

      Absurdity follows error.

    2. Isn't that, after all, the rationale behind qualified immunity in the first place?

      The rationale behind qualified immunity is "We're all on the same team here! When my granddaughter crashes her car while drunk again you'll give her a ride home. And you can continue to commit perjury all day long. They're all guilty of something."

  3. The cops take an oath to defend the constitution.
    It is not asking too much for them to read it before they take the oath.

  4. What happened to ignorance is no excuse? Seems QI is just a quizzical invocation of ignorance by so called defenders of the law. How can they defend and uphold the law if they are ignorant of it?

    1. Government employees are the in-group and thus live by a different set of rules.

    2. In medical malpractice, adherence to the standard of care is relied upon to decide whether there is liability.

      Bad things can happen and doctors are found faultless, if they stayed up to date in their specialty by taking periodic classes and follow updated guidelines.

      Only when they veer away from standards of care or skip continuing education courses, do they incur liability for any bad things.

      Why should police be held to a lower standard? One-time training clearly doesn’t work. If they don’t take refresher courses and harm occurs, qualified immunity should not apply.

      There should be no difference in liability between cops and doctors who cause harm by deviating from a standard of practice reinforced and based on continuing training.

      1. Perhaps you should review the relative earnings of cops and docs?

        1. Just as soon as the cops are required to carry professional liability insurance.

        2. "Perhaps you should review the relative earnings of cops and docs?"

          I worked with several government agencies here in CA which required yearly training (and in some cases much more than just yearly), to either keep abreast of changes in the way things were done, or to improve skill-sets, or to keep abreast of department regulations. I never paid a penny for it. Will it cost the taxpayers a bit more? Yep. But, if better-informed cops is the result, I am thinking most everybody would agree it would be worth it.

        3. Let's see, total pay & benefits. The top earning police officer in Cali got over $700k
          https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=police+officer
          Granted the average is only $164k. I won't put a second link only to wind up in moderation forever. I don't know how much doctors earn but they also have a heavy educational expense that cops don't even come close to.

          1. Cops make "Only" $165K for what is historically a blue collar job AND are largely exempt form legal liability for screw-ups. Wish I had their union. I'm a physician. Per hour, the job is not all that well-paid, particularly when you only start practicing in your early 30's after years of poverty. Many physicians in specialties like pediatrics don't make $164K after 7 years of post-graduate work. And this with education loans as much as $400K.

  5. While "police departments regularly inform their officers about watershed decisions like Graham and Garner," Schwartz found, "officers are not regularly or reliably informed about court decisions interpreting those decisions in different factual scenarios—the very types of decisions that are necessary to clearly establish the law about the constitutionality of uses of force." That conclusion is based partly on Schwartz's examination of California police department policy manuals, which "reference or incorporate the constitutional standards from Graham and Garner,
    but rarely reference any cases in which Graham and Garner were applied."

    This hardly surprises me. I've been watching a fun channel called "audit the audit" on youtube where cops routinely claim points of law which are either wildly misinterpreted or just flat out non-existent.

    There was a fun video where a supercar enthusiast from BC, Canada was driving his Lamborghini in Beverly Hills and he was pulled over by an officer (first on a lie) claiming he ran a stop sign(the impetus for the stop) then when the driver presented his Canadian driver's license, cited him for driving without a proper international driver's license, required (according to the officer) required in California.

    No such license is required in California or any other state for decades if the driver hails from North America.

  6. Sauce, goose, gander. How many corporations have you heard of lately getting out of paying tax penalties on the basis that tax law is at least as complicated as constitutional law and nobody could be expected to keep up with it all?

  7. So they’ve determined that cops should be free to kill and steal at will, because the alternative is just too expensive for cities to be paying out - even in egregious circumstances.

    Either decision is a slippery slope, but the justices prefer to err on the side of authoritarian control, rather than constitutional rights.

    Woodchipper. Stat!

  8. In a search and seizure suppression motion I brought a few years back, I tried to acquire LA sheriff’s search and seizure manual to dispute claims of good faith. LA Sheriff doesn’t have a search and seizure manual. That was pretty astonishing.

Comments are closed.