Betilda

Not a lawyer and not representing this AMA – It's very easy to find politicians that staunchly support qualified immunity. For example, I’m from Virginia, and Governor Youngkin in his inaugural address expressed support for QI, stating “we will protect qualified immunity for law enforcement.”

Being against abolishing QI has definitely become a ‘pro-police’ rally cry- which is fascinating because I personally think abolishing QI could very easily be a conservative talking point (pro-constitution, anti-government overreach, etc). Abolishing QI is also opposed by every significant government union- any politician with strong ties to police or teachers unions would be against abolishing QI. Safe to say it would be easier to make a list of politicians who are working to abolish QI than it is to make one of those who are satisfied with it remaining the status quo.

Okay, so I (again, not a lawyer) am going to attempt to answer some unspoken questions here. Why is removing QI bad for police officers? (in my opinion, it's not)

Qualified immunity did not exist until SCOTUS made it up in 1982. Prior to this, officers had to abide by a good faith and reasonableness standard that the Court adopted in 1967. Under that standard, intentional and obvious constitutional violations are not protected (as they are now under QI), but officers would not be held responsible if, for example, a citizen were killed, but they reasonably believed them to be reaching for a gun.

Will lawsuits bankrupt police? No. Notre Dame research found when QI is overcome (which is again, very hard to do) individual officers contribute to settlements in 0.41% of cases and pay 0.02% of total awards to plaintiffs.

In terms of this question of “who would take the job”, abolishing QI shouldn’t hurt recruitment, because abolishing QI will do absolutely nothing to harm the vast majority of police officers. It will only harm those who violate Constitutional rights- who are currently free to do so with impunity.

I think there is a real conversation to be had about cultural vitriol against policing as a profession- but while any highly sensitive discussion like this has some crazy polar-ends, it didn’t come out of nowhere. Real, actionable police accountability is probably one of the best ways to restore public faith in the profession, and it’s my opinion that cultural antagonism is harming interest in the policing profession more than common-sense policy discussions. Abolishing QI could actually restore faith and respect in policing.

What can non-attorneys do to move the needle on this? Do protests make a difference in your work, contacting officials, etc? What's the way we can help make your work more impactful/actionable?

You are not speaking to a conservative. I am making a cynical point about messaging and how this issue could very easily be shoe-horned to fit a bullet-list of 'freedom-y' beliefs.

Partisan frustration is beyond justified, but as QI is supported by the vast majority of politicians, the simple fact is that we need conservative messaging for qualified immunity to be actionably abolished.

And also- if a person is interested in being a part of actionable change, they need to learn how to talk to people who do think that's what conservatives are about. Not everyone needs to have this dialogue- there’s a lot of pain out there and no one should be expected to educate anyone on anything. But this is a thread about how to make QI reform actionable. However angry I am, I want to have that discussion with people, because that’s how change gets closer.