zlacker

>>mnm1+(OP)
I'm curious - it's obvious what abuses of qualified immunity are driving this, but the law must have been originally put in place for a reason. Are there any examples where a police officer was shielded from prosecution for something that, if you or I did it would definitely be a crime, but that a reasonable person would say, "yes, this is a good application of qualified immunity"?

>>comman+9m
Lets say you want to build a deck. You put together the plans, take them to the planning commission, and they rightfully reject it for being structually unsound.

Qualified immunity is what prevents you from personally suing each member of the planning commission to pressure them in to reversing their decision. Think of it like the legal system throwing an exception, we aren't even going to consider this because your beef is with the city not an individual employee.

Police have qualified immunity because otherwise they would face personal lawsuits every time they wrote a rich guy a speeding ticket, or a convicted murderer has nothing better to do but get his law degree in prison.

In my opinion, qualified immunity is _not_ the problem. If an officer does something in their official capacity that is wrong, it is up to the department and the DA to deal with. Just like if the hypothetical planning commission did something illegal. Unfortunately police unions prevent that from being a viable option.

>>dsl+Hq
I still don't get it though. What would you be suing a commissioner over that would get them to reverse their decision? If you're suing them directly for their decision, then surely that just wouldn't be a valid lawsuit. If you're suing them for some unrelated valid issue, but using that as pressure for them to change their decision, then surely that's already illegal. Isn't it considered extortion or blackmail to compel someone to give you something of value by threatening to sue them or report them to law enforcement?

>>baddox+Pw
> If you're suing them directly for their decision, then surely that just wouldn't be a valid lawsuit

The commenter is saying that the fact that this isn't a valid lawsuit is what is meant by qualified immunity, I believe.

>>tathou+Nx
Why shouldn't it also be invalid in an analogous non-government situation?

>>baddox+mC
I believe it is? If a starbucks employee treats you poorly while on the job as a starbucks employee, then starbucks is liable because their employees are their agents. The difference is that the government, unlike starbucks, enjoys sovereign immunity -- they can't necessarily be sued and held liable. There's probably more to it. I'm not a lawyer.

>>tathou+fN
That’s certainly not the case. The government can be sued.

>>baddox+CY
The government can be sued because Congress has consented to being sued, not because the government is suable by default.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...

> In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.[7] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[8] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."[9]

The only reason the United States can legally appear as a defendant in a civil suit currently is because Congress has consented to being sued:

> The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not the broad waivers of sovereign immunity they might appear to be, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.

But in general, the government of the United states is immune from civil suits, and Congress can decide at any time -- even during an active case -- to decide to not want to be sued anymore.

The governments of the states -- being the ultimate sovereign authority of the United States of America -- are also generally immune from civil suit, except in limited circumstances. I believe most have however consented to being sued.

On this matter, the supreme court has said:

> we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention." States may consent to suit, and therefore waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing a case from state court to federal court.