497 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
497 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
March 1990
|
||
|
||
PERSONAL LIABILITY: THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE
|
||
|
||
By
|
||
|
||
Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D.
|
||
Special Agent
|
||
and
|
||
Chief of the Legal Instruction Unit
|
||
FBI Academy
|
||
Quantico, Virginia
|
||
|
||
Law enforcement officers face many stressful situations
|
||
inherent in their profession, including the threat of being sued
|
||
and held personally liable for money damages because of their
|
||
actions. Since officers are often placed in fast-breaking
|
||
situations, they must decide whether to arrest or search with
|
||
little opportunity to obtain prior legal advice. By its very
|
||
nature, law enforcement inevitably places officers in situations
|
||
where they must make difficult judgments, balancing the extent of
|
||
the authority they exercise with the constitutional rights of the
|
||
citizens they serve. Citizens rightly expect officers to
|
||
understand the constitutional principles that govern their
|
||
conduct. At the same time, law enforcement effectiveness often
|
||
depends on officers' confidence and willingness to act swiftly
|
||
and decisively to combat crime and protect the public.
|
||
|
||
However, the fear of personal liability can seriously erode
|
||
this necessary confidence and willingness to act. Even worse,
|
||
law enforcement officers who have an unrealistic or exaggerated
|
||
fear of personal liability may become overly timid or indecisive
|
||
and fail to arrest or search to the detriment of the public's
|
||
interest in effective and aggressive law enforcement. In order
|
||
to accurately assess their potential exposure to personal
|
||
liability, law enforcement officials must understand the
|
||
constitutional law that governs their conduct. They must also
|
||
understand the protection of qualified immunity that shields
|
||
officers from personal liability for unconstitutional law
|
||
enforcement activity that is deemed objectively reasonable.
|
||
|
||
This article discusses recent court decisions that clarify
|
||
the extent of protection from personal liability offered by the
|
||
qualified immunity defense. The article's primary purpose is to
|
||
allay officers' unrealistic concerns for personal liability that
|
||
can inhibit law enforcement effectiveness and undermine morale.
|
||
It discusses the following aspects of the immunity
|
||
defense--immunity rationale and scope, the ``objective legal
|
||
reasonableness'' test, the ``clearly established law''
|
||
requirement, applicability to unconstitutional law enforcement
|
||
conduct, and procedural considerations in asserting the defense.
|
||
|
||
IMMUNITY RATIONALE AND SCOPE
|
||
|
||
Immunity is a legally recognized exemption from liability.
|
||
Recently, in the case of Forrester v. White, (1) the Supreme Court
|
||
described the rationale for immunity as follows:
|
||
|
||
``Suits for monetary damages are meant to compensate the
|
||
victims of wrongful actions and to discourage conduct that may
|
||
result in liability. Special problems arise, however, when
|
||
government officials are exposed to liability for damages. To
|
||
the extent that the threat of liability encourages these
|
||
officials to carry out their duties in a lawful and appropriate
|
||
manner, and to pay their victims when they do not, it
|
||
accomplishes exactly what it should. By its nature, however,
|
||
the threat of liability can create perverse incentives that
|
||
operate to inhibit officials in the proper performance of their
|
||
duties. In many contexts, government officials are expected to
|
||
make decisions that are impartial or imaginative, and that above
|
||
all are informed by considerations other than the personal
|
||
interests of the decisionmaker. Because government officials are
|
||
engaged by definition in governing, their decisions will often
|
||
have adverse effects on other persons. When officials
|
||
are threatened with personal liability for acts taken pursuant
|
||
to their official duties, they may well be induced to act with
|
||
an excess of caution or otherwise to skew their decisions in
|
||
ways that result in less than full fidelity to the objective and
|
||
independent criteria that ought to guide their conduct. In this
|
||
way, exposing government officials to the same legal hazards
|
||
faced by other citizens may detract from the rule of law instead
|
||
of contributing to it.'' (2)
|
||
|
||
These considerations have led courts to create both absolute
|
||
and qualified immunity defenses. The Supreme Court has been
|
||
``...quite sparing in its recognition of claims to absolute
|
||
official immunity,'' (3) which is limited to officials whose
|
||
special functions demand total protection from suit, such as
|
||
judges and prosecutors, ``...intimately associated with the
|
||
judicial phase of the criminal process.'' (4) While law
|
||
enforcement officers do not receive absolute immunity protection,
|
||
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held that law
|
||
enforcement officers charged with the duty of executing facially
|
||
valid court orders do enjoy absolute immunity from liability for
|
||
damages resulting from conduct prescribed by that order. (5) The
|
||
court found that enforcing a court order is intrinsically
|
||
associated with a judicial proceeding. Also, it determined that
|
||
the public interest in the enforcement of court orders essential
|
||
to the effective function of the judicial process far outweighs
|
||
the benefit to be gained by making law enforcement officers
|
||
liable for decisions they are powerless to control. (6)
|
||
|
||
Courts generally agree, however, that most law enforcement
|
||
functions do not require absolute immunity protection. For
|
||
example, in Malley v. Briggs, (7) the Supreme Court refused to
|
||
expand the scope of absolute immunity to the decision of a Rhode
|
||
Island State trooper to apply for an arrest warrant. In this
|
||
case, the Court decided that a rule of qualified rather than
|
||
absolute immunity would give police ``ample room for mistaken
|
||
judgments,'' and yet not ``deter an officer from submitting an
|
||
affidavit when probable cause to make an arrest is present.'' (8)
|
||
|
||
The Court noted that a damages remedy for an arrest
|
||
following an objectively unreasonable request for a warrant
|
||
imposes a cost directly on the officer responsible for the
|
||
unreasonable request and directly benefits the victim of the
|
||
police misconduct. The Court commented on the trooper's
|
||
expansive qualified immunity protection by noting, ``[O]nly where
|
||
the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable
|
||
cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable
|
||
will the shield of immunity be lost.'' (9)
|
||
|
||
Qualified immunity is designed to insulate responsible law
|
||
enforcement officers ``from undue interference with their duties
|
||
and from the potentially disabling threat of liability,'' and it
|
||
shields from civil liability ``all but the plainly incompetent or
|
||
those who knowingly violate the law.'' (10)
|
||
|
||
IMMUNITY BASED ON ``OBJECTIVE LEGAL REASONABLENESS''
|
||
|
||
In 1982, the Supreme Court adopted an objective standard for
|
||
courts to use in determining whether immunity shields official
|
||
action. The Court described the parameters of qualified immunity
|
||
defense as follows:
|
||
|
||
``[G]overnment 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.'' (11)
|
||
|
||
That standard was further clarified 5 years later when the
|
||
Court defined ``objective legal reasonableness'' as the
|
||
touchstone for a qualified immunity defense. That decision in
|
||
Anderson v. Creighton (12) involved a suit against a Special Agent
|
||
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation alleging an
|
||
unconstitutional warrantless search. The U.S. Court of Appeals
|
||
for the Eighth Circuit had rejected the Agent's claim for
|
||
qualified immunity, concluding that the law was clearly
|
||
established that persons are protected from warrantless searches
|
||
of their homes unless the searching officers have probable cause
|
||
and exigent circumstances. (13) The Agent sought review of that
|
||
court of appeals decision in the Supreme Court. He argued that
|
||
he was entitled to qualified immunity if he could establish as a
|
||
matter of law that a reasonable officer could have believed the
|
||
search to be lawful.
|
||
|
||
The Supreme Court agreed with the Agent that the court of
|
||
appeals had erroneously refused to consider whether it was
|
||
clearly established that the circumstances confronting the Agent
|
||
did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances. The
|
||
Court made clear that the availability of the qualified immunity
|
||
defense generally turns on the ``objective legal reasonableness''
|
||
of the action in question assessed in light of the legal rules
|
||
that were clearly established at the time that action was
|
||
taken. (14)
|
||
|
||
Law enforcement officers do not lose their qualified
|
||
immunity simply because it is shown that they violated a
|
||
generalized right, such as the right of citizens to be free from
|
||
unreasonable searches and seizures. Instead, it must be shown
|
||
that the law was clearly established in a ``particularized''
|
||
sense, so that ``the contours of the right'' are clear enough for
|
||
any reasonable officer to know that what he or she is doing
|
||
violates that right. (15) This particularity requirement does not
|
||
mean that law enforcement officers will always be protected by
|
||
qualified immunity unless the very action in question has been
|
||
held unlawful. Rather, it means that the illegality must be
|
||
apparent in light of preexisting law before officers lose their
|
||
immunity protection. (16) The Court held that law enforcement
|
||
officials should not be held personally liable when they
|
||
``...reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is
|
||
present.'' (17) The ``objective legal reasonableness'' test
|
||
applied to an allegedly unlawful search requires an examination
|
||
of the information possessed by the searching officials. The
|
||
relevant question to be resolved is whether a reasonable officer
|
||
could have believed the Agent's warrantless search to be lawful
|
||
in light of clearly established law and the information that the
|
||
searching Agent possessed.
|
||
|
||
THE ``CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW'' REQUIREMENT
|
||
|
||
The unlawfulness of the challenged conduct must be apparent
|
||
in light of preexisting law. (18) The Supreme Court has instructed
|
||
that the actions of a reasonably competent officer should be
|
||
assessed in the light of the legal rules that were ``clearly
|
||
established'' at the time the action was taken. (19) A legal
|
||
right is ``clearly established'' if the contours of that right
|
||
are sufficiently clear that reasonable law enforcement officials
|
||
would understand that what they are doing violates that right.
|
||
Therefore, a qualified immunity defense will generally fail if
|
||
the plaintiff proves that the law which an officer allegedly
|
||
violated was ``clearly established'' at the time the challenged
|
||
conduct occurred and that a reasonably competent officer should
|
||
have known of that law.
|
||
|
||
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that a determination
|
||
of whether a legal right was ``clearly established'' requires
|
||
courts to survey the legal landscape that existed at the time of
|
||
the challenged conduct. (20) First, in the absence of binding
|
||
precedent, courts should look to available decisional law from
|
||
courts in other jurisdictions. (21) Second, comparisons to
|
||
previously settled cases should not be limited to ``...looking
|
||
for a repetition of the very action in question.'' (22) Third,
|
||
courts should determine the likelihood that the Supreme Court or
|
||
courts in the relevant jurisdiction would have reached the same
|
||
result as the nonbinding precedent. (23) Fourth, courts should
|
||
determine whether at the time of the incident there was a wide
|
||
diversity of cases arriving at differing results, or any cases
|
||
rejecting a similar claim. (24)
|
||
|
||
The court said that law enforcement officers are charged
|
||
with knowledge of constitutional enforcement developments and
|
||
should not be allowed ``...to interpose lawyerly distinctions
|
||
that defy common sense in order to distinguish away clearly
|
||
established law.'' (25) However, courts agree that officers
|
||
``...are not required to predict the future course of
|
||
constitutional law.'' (26)
|
||
|
||
The lack of binding precedent or the existence of
|
||
conflicting decisions usually results in a finding that a law was
|
||
not ``clearly established.''(27) For example, the 11th Circuit
|
||
Court of Appeals ruled that two deputy sheriffs were protected
|
||
from personal liability by qualified immunity for an allegedly
|
||
unlawful seizure because their conduct did not violate clearly
|
||
established law. (28) The court concluded the plaintiff had the
|
||
burden of proving that the law allegedly violated by the
|
||
deputies was ``clearly established'' at the time the detention
|
||
occurred and that this burden was not met ``...simply by making
|
||
general, conclusory allegations of some constitutional violation
|
||
or by stating broad legal truisms.'' (29) Instead, the court said
|
||
that ``plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear,
|
||
factually-defined, well-recognized right of which a reasonable
|
||
police officer should have known.'' (30) The right allegedly
|
||
violated must have been sufficiently particularized and clear so
|
||
that reasonable officers in the deputies' position would
|
||
understand that their particular seizure violated that right. (31)
|
||
|
||
In that regard, the court held that the case authorities
|
||
cited by the plaintiff failed to establish that the law was
|
||
``clearly established'' because they involved seizures that were
|
||
factually distinguishable from the deputies'. Moreover, other
|
||
court decisions had actually determined that such seizures were
|
||
constitutionally reasonable. Since the ``...line between the
|
||
lawful and the unlawful is often vague, making it difficult for
|
||
officers to know precisely which seizures are constitutional,''
|
||
the court said qualified immunity protection should only be lost
|
||
when a law enforcement officer engages in unconstitutional
|
||
conduct that crosses a bright line. (32) The court then cautioned
|
||
that this bright line is not to be found in legal abstractions,
|
||
such as the general requirement that seizures be reasonable, but
|
||
rather in specific prior cases involving concrete circumstances
|
||
and facts similar to the case at issue.
|
||
|
||
APPLICABILITY OF IMMUNITY DEFENSE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW
|
||
ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT
|
||
|
||
The Supreme Court in Anderson v. Creighton made it clear
|
||
that qualified immunity will protect a law enforcement officer
|
||
from personal liability if unconstitutional conduct meets the
|
||
test of ``objective legal reasonableness.'' The Court held that
|
||
extending qualified immunity to constitutional violations is a
|
||
reasonable accommodation between governmental need and
|
||
individual freedom, and is necessary to give conscientious law
|
||
enforcement officers the assurance of protection that is the
|
||
object of the immunity doctrine. (33) The Court stated that law
|
||
enforcement officers should ``...know that they will not be held
|
||
personally liable as long as their actions are reasonable in
|
||
light of current American law.'' (34)
|
||
|
||
Applying this ``objective legal reasonableness'' standard,
|
||
Federal appellate courts have recently upheld immunity defenses
|
||
for allegedly unconstitutional law enforcement conduct. For
|
||
example, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a qualified
|
||
immunity defense for a deputy sheriff who allegedly made an
|
||
arrest without probable cause. (35) The court noted that ``even in
|
||
the absence of probable cause for an arrest, qualified immunity
|
||
provides officers with an additional layer of protection against
|
||
civil liability.'' (36) A fourth amendment violation, although by
|
||
definition unreasonable, does not foreclose an additional
|
||
reasonableness inquiry for purposes of qualified immunity. (37)
|
||
|
||
The court agreed that the right to freedom from arrest
|
||
without probable cause is beyond a doubt clearly established.
|
||
However, it also concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in
|
||
Anderson ``mandates an inquiry into the facts surrounding the
|
||
officer's action in order to determine whether in the light of
|
||
preexisting law the unlawfulness was apparent.'' (38) Similarly,
|
||
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the defense of
|
||
qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers in cases
|
||
where they mistakenly conclude that probable cause to arrest is
|
||
present. (39) Since actual probable cause is not necessary for an
|
||
arrest to be objectively reasonable, the court said the issue is
|
||
``not probable cause in fact but arguable probable cause.'' (40)
|
||
|
||
Of course, unconstitutional police conduct that fails to
|
||
meet the test of ``objective legal reasonableness'' is not
|
||
entitled to immunity protection. In that regard, the Fifth
|
||
Circuit Court of Appeals held that immunity is lost where it is
|
||
objectively determined that no reasonable law enforcement officer
|
||
could have believed that the action was constitutionally
|
||
justified in light of clearly established law. (41)
|
||
|
||
PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS IN ASSERTING THE IMMUNITY DEFENSE
|
||
|
||
In many cases, the ``objective legal reasonableness'' test,
|
||
as clarified by the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Creighton, will
|
||
allow law enforcement officers to successfully assert their
|
||
qualified immunity from personal liability in a motion for
|
||
summary judgment, thereby avoiding the protracted and
|
||
time-consuming processes of litigation. (42) The Supreme Court has
|
||
stated that a law enforcement officer's entitlement to qualified
|
||
immunity is not a mere defense to liability, but an immunity from
|
||
suit itself and the concomitant burdens of discovery. (43)
|
||
Accordingly, a trial court's denial of an officer's motion for
|
||
summary judgment based on qualified immunity raises a question of
|
||
law that can be immediately appealed by the officer. (44) However,
|
||
the defense of qualified immunity is not waived if an officer
|
||
chooses not to take an immediate appeal; officers retain the
|
||
right to assert at trial their qualified immunity based on
|
||
``objective legal reasonableness.''(45)
|
||
|
||
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals described the two-step
|
||
process that courts should follow in deciding whether to grant
|
||
qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment prior to
|
||
allowing a plaintiff the opportunity to conduct discovery:
|
||
|
||
``...the trial court must first determine whether the
|
||
law prohibiting the alleged police conduct was clearly
|
||
established at the time it occurred....Second, a trial court
|
||
must determine whether the police conduct, as alleged by the
|
||
plaintiff, constituted actions that a reasonable officer could
|
||
have believed lawful.'' (46)
|
||
|
||
A law enforcement officer is entitled to dismissal of a suit
|
||
prior to discovery where the trial court determines either: 1)
|
||
That the relevant law was not clearly established, or 2) that
|
||
another reasonable officer possessing the specific information
|
||
available to the officer in question could have reasonably
|
||
believed the actions taken were lawful. The court observed that
|
||
when the litigants disagree as to the actions taken, some
|
||
discovery may be necessary before a motion for summary judgment
|
||
can be granted. (47) However, such discovery should only occur if
|
||
there is a substantial factual disagreement as to what actions
|
||
the law enforcement officers actually took, and should be
|
||
limited to determining the applicability of the qualified
|
||
immunity defense. (48)
|
||
|
||
CONCLUSION
|
||
|
||
The threat of personal liability is one of many risks
|
||
associated with the law enforcement profession. An officer's
|
||
discretionary decision to arrest or search inevitably increases
|
||
the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. While this risk can be
|
||
minimized by comprehensive departmental policies, thorough
|
||
training, and attentive managerial controls, officers ultimately
|
||
have a personal responsibility to insure that their conduct
|
||
conforms to constitutional requirements. The qualified immunity
|
||
defense does not excuse clearly unconstitutional or offensive
|
||
police misconduct. It does, however, offer generous protection
|
||
to conscientious officers who make objectively reasonable
|
||
mistakes. The availability of a qualified immunity defense
|
||
should be encouragement to responsible officers that they can
|
||
perform their vital law enforcement functions without a constant
|
||
fear of personal liability.
|
||
|
||
FOOTNOTES
|
||
|
||
(1) 108 S.Ct. 538 (1988).
|
||
|
||
(2) Id. at 542.
|
||
|
||
(3) Id.
|
||
|
||
(4) Imbler v. Pachtman, 96 S.Ct. 984, 995 (1976).
|
||
|
||
(5) Valdez v. City and County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1288
|
||
(10th Cir. 1989). In Geter v. Fortenberry, 882 F.2d 167 (5th
|
||
Cir. 1989), a police officer's testimony on the witness stand was
|
||
afforded absolute immunity.
|
||
|
||
(6) Id. at 1289. In Pleasant v. Lovell, 876 F.2d 787, 805
|
||
(10th Cir. 1989), officers were afforded absolute immunity for
|
||
their actions in assisting prosecutors in serving grand jury
|
||
subpoenas.
|
||
|
||
(7) 106 S.Ct. 1092 (1986).
|
||
|
||
(8) Id. at 1097.
|
||
|
||
(9) Id. at 1098 (citations omitted).
|
||
|
||
(10) Id. at 1096.
|
||
|
||
(11) Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 (1982). For a
|
||
comprehensive analysis of the Harlow decision, see Higginbotham,
|
||
``Defending Law Enforcement Officers Against Personal Liability
|
||
in Constitutional Tort Litigations,'' FBI Law Enforcement
|
||
Bulletin, vol. 54, Nos. 4-5, April and May 1985.
|
||
|
||
(12) 107 S.Ct. 3034 (1987).
|
||
|
||
(13) See, Creighton v. City of St. Paul, 766 F.2d 1269 (8th
|
||
Cir. 1985).
|
||
|
||
(14) 107 S.Ct. at 3038.
|
||
|
||
(15) Id. at 3039.
|
||
|
||
(16) Id.
|
||
|
||
(17) Id.
|
||
|
||
(18) Id. at 3038.
|
||
|
||
(19) Id. at 3039.
|
||
|
||
(20) Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1989).
|
||
|
||
(21) Id. at 591.
|
||
|
||
(22) Id. at 592.
|
||
|
||
(23) Id. at 593.
|
||
|
||
(24) Id. at 595.
|
||
|
||
(25) Id. at 593.
|
||
|
||
(26) See, Lum v. Jensen, 876 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir. 1989).
|
||
|
||
(27) Id.
|
||
|
||
(28) Barts v. Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir. 1989).
|
||
|
||
(29) Id. at 1190.
|
||
|
||
(30) Id.
|
||
|
||
(31) Id.
|
||
|
||
(32) Id. at 1194.
|
||
|
||
(33) 107 S.Ct. at 3040-1.
|
||
|
||
(34) Id. at 3042.
|
||
|
||
(35) Hughes v. Meyer, 880 F.2d 967 (7th Cir. 1989).
|
||
|
||
(36) Id. at 970.
|
||
|
||
(37) Id. (citations omitted).
|
||
|
||
(38) Id.
|
||
|
||
(39) Gorra v. Hanson, 880 F. 2d 95 (8th Cir. 1989).
|
||
|
||
(40) Id. at 97.
|
||
|
||
(41) Melear v. Spears, 862 F.2d 1117, 1185 (5th Cir. 1989).
|
||
See also, Masters v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248 (6th Cir. 1989).
|
||
|
||
(42) The trial judge may determine that a factual dispute
|
||
exists that precludes summary judgment. Id. at 1183.
|
||
|
||
(43) See, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 105 S.Ct. 2806 (1985).
|
||
|
||
(44) In Apostol v. Gallion, 970 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1989), the
|
||
court held that absent a finding of frivolity, trial is
|
||
automatically put off pending an appeal of the district court's
|
||
denial of an officer's claim of qualified immunity.
|
||
|
||
(45) Hamm v. Powell, 874 F.2d 766, 770 (11th Cir. 1989).
|
||
|
||
(46) Ginter v. Stallcup, 869 F.2d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 1989).
|
||
|
||
(47) Id. at 387-88.
|
||
|
||
(48) Id. at 388.
|
||
|
||
----------
|
||
Law enforcement officers of other than Federal jurisdiction
|
||
who are interested in any legal issue discussed in this article
|
||
should consult their legal adviser. Some police procedures ruled
|
||
permissible under Federal constitutional law are of questionable
|
||
legality under State law or are not permitted at all.
|
||
|