In June Some House Moderates Voted To Abolish Qualified Immunity for Cops. Now They're Not So Sure.
Strategic politicking, police union influence, or both?
Strategic politicking, police union influence, or both?
The justices did not address one of James King's key arguments, which the 6th Circuit will now consider.
They need not wait for the Supreme Court or Congress to restrict or abolish qualified immunity.
An encouraging sign from the Supreme Court
A bill approved by the state House would let people sue government officials for violating rights protected by the state constitution.
The appeals court concluded that the officers' use of force was reasonable in the circumstances.
The unfolding legal saga of City of Hayward v. Stoddard-Nunez
Fourth Amendment advocates prevail in Wingate v. Fulford.
The warden at the center of the case was originally given qualified immunity.
A state law eliminated qualified immunity as a defense for abusive officers.
A federal court said it did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights.
Objections to police reform are often more rooted in partisan knee-jerk reactions than in sensible policymaking.
A Connecticut law that made it easier to sue abusive cops is not expected to have a noticeable effect on municipal insurance costs.
Unfortunately, qualified immunity remains intact.
Now do qualified immunity.
His Trump toadying was absolutely awful, but still not nearly as bad as his unremittingly harsh approach to justice and policing.
My response to an important new article by Scott Keller
The legal doctrine provides rogue government agents cushy protections not available to the little guy.
The legal doctrine is a free pass for rampant government abuse.
According to the government, a law aimed at helping victims like King prevents him from holding his assailants accountable.
The case doesn't make any change in legal doctrine. But it may be intended to send a message to lower courts.
The state legislature is considering reforms in response to the use of dogs against cooperative suspects.
The legal doctrine makes it considerably harder to hold cops accountable. Trump refused to address it.
In several cases, the Supreme Court nominee voted to allow civil rights lawsuits against officers accused of misconduct.
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito worry about the future of religious freedom. That’s not the same as a call to overturn the decision.
And that's true even if state graffiti law provided probable cause for the arrest, so long as there's evidence that chalking with other messages almost never leads to arrests.
The 7th Circuit judge’s track record suggests she would frequently be a friend of civil liberties.
The case is an encouraging sign that the SCOTUS contender is not the sort of judge who bends over backward to shield cops from liability for outrageous misconduct.
Another example of how powerful the law enforcement lobby is
The 5th Circuit judge is a mixed bag from a libertarian perspective.
This court-invented doctrine shields bad cops from civil liability.
Reason asked writers who have been on the criminal justice beat for years to lay out serious proposals for reforms with a fighting chance of being implemented.
Even the most police-skeptical courts grant the doctrine in egregious circumstances.
Stop pandering to Joe Biden and listen to Americans who want to stop shielding abusive officers from liability.
"I believe there is sufficient evidence of a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation," writes the dissenting judge.
Trying to distract attention from the deadly corruption in his own department, Art Acevedo demands "action at the national level."
"The Constitution says everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law—even at the hands of law enforcement," wrote Judge Carlton W. Reeves.
The law is a step in the right direction, but has significant limitations, that should be a warning sign for future reform efforts.
Getting government officials to put their packs of enforcers on shorter leashes is the definition of an uphill battle.
American voters know what's up.
As policy makers consider ways to reduce some of these shocking use-of-force incidents, they need to evaluate the role of unions in protecting overly aggressive officers.
In attempting to appeal to everyone, the Democratic presidential candidate misses the mark.
The decision vividly illustrates how the doctrine shields police from accountability for using excessive force.
The judicially invented license for police abuse undermines the rule of law and the separation of powers.
The answer speaks volumes about the extent to which that doctrine protects police officers from liability for outrageous conduct.
The Fox News host says reforming qualified immunity would "end law enforcement." That's not even close to being true.
State reform isn't a complete substitute for abolition of the federal judicial doctrine. But it can achieve a lot. A recent Colorado law provides a model other states would do well to imitate.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights were violated.