In police abuse of force cases, the officer may raise a defense of qualified immunity. That defense is an affirmative defense. The burden rests on the defendants to prove it. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 639-641 (1980)

Police Qualified Immunity- The Elements

Under this defense, the officer may be excused from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid. It may also be based upon the objectively reasonable belief the officer’s actions were lawful.

In making a claim under U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant deprived him of a federal right and secondly that person acted under color of state law. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 171 (1961)

Qualified immunity initially arose in Pierson v. Ray, 386 Va. 547 (1967). In that case, the defense was confined by the common law requisites of good faith and probable cause. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the court rejected the subjective element of good faith. Instead it focused on the state of the law at the time of the conduct.

The defendant may try to assert that absent the existence of a case or a statute on point, the officer could not have been on notice of any illegality. In Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.Ct. 305, 309 (2015), the court said that there was no requirement that there be a case directly on point. However it did say that existing case law needs to clearly define the issue. The general rules or general constitutional principles are not sufficient to put the government actor on notice that what he was doing was unconstitutional. However there is no requirement that an identical case clearly define the issue.

In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002), the court stated that it expressly rejected a requirement that police cases be fundamentally similar to put the officer on notice as to what the status of the law is. 

Police Qualified Immunity- Outrageousness Is the Best Counter

To confront the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff will have to show the outrageousness of the officer’s conduct. The more outrageous, then the less likely it is that qualified immunity will apply. In particular under that set of circumstances, the officer will have a difficult time proving that there is some statute that somehow insulates him. Likewise he will have a difficult time proving that he had an objectively reasonable belief that his actions were lawful. 

An Escape Hatch

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is worded so as to state that where a state actor deprives a person of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, then that person “…shall be liable to the party injured…” In the 1874 Revised Statutes of the United States, which were the first attempted codification of this Code section, the Code read a little bit differently. Between the words “shall” and “be liable”, there was another phrase which said, “any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the state to the contrary notwithstanding”. What that meant then in proper context was that the state actor “shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the state to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured.”

That wording of the statute means that any of the common law immunities from which qualified immunity is derived were expressly excluded. That is, the state actor was not protected by these immunities.

Work With an Experienced Attorney in the DMV Area

Call or contact us for a free consult. Also for more info on police abuse see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with police abuse issues.

 

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print
Picture of Brien Roche
Brien Roche

Brien A. Roche has been an attorney since 1976. Mr. Roche is admitted to practice in Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland. In addition to his busy law practice, Mr. Roche is also a published author of several books & articles relating to the practice of law.

Learn More

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *