\n\n“what about the onslaught of frivolous suits that would come down against the police? That also misses the mark, particularly when considering that it is not possible to simply enter a federal courthouse and file a lawsuit because you’re mad at the cops. Before suing a government actor, a plaintiff must satisfy two conditions: that the public servant affirmatively violated someone’s constitutional rights, and that the violation of the rights is clearly established in prior case law. Without qualified immunity, a would-be litigant would still need to prove to a federal judge that his constitutional rights were infringed on. Qualified immunity is only the second part\u2014the part that sends a victim searching for a perfect court precedent where another victim experienced a near-identical sort of misconduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It’s for that reason that the doctrine gives license to some disturbing behavior\u2014the sort that should concern anyone who positions himself as a defender of responsible governance. An example: “The City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong,” but the police “did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment.” This is a real quote<\/a> from a real decision<\/a> from a real federal court\u2014the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit\u2014awarding qualified immunity to two government actors who we apparently cannot trust to know that stealing during a search warrant is unconstitutional unless there is some obscure court precedent saying so. I’d posit that most of the public has more faith in police to do their jobs with integrity. I certainly do.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n