Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects police officers from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties. In liberal places like Colorado and New York, the doctrine came under attack in the aftermath of the 2020 George Floyd riots. There, the state or local government removed the defense by statute. But, qualified immunity is a defense in federal court and cannot be taken away by state or local governments. In Florida, as in the rest of the United States, this doctrine plays a significant role in civil rights litigation, particularly in cases involving allegations of police misconduct.
Historical Background
The qualified immunity doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). This case involved a group of clergymen who were arrested under a Mississippi statute for attempting to use a segregated bus terminal. The officers claimed they acted in good faith under the law, and the Supreme Court agreed, establishing that officers are protected from liability unless they violate clearly established law.
The modern test for qualified immunity, however, was established in the case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Police officers will benefit from qualified immunity when performing their discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, of which a reasonable person would have known. The purpose of this immunity is to allow government officials to carry out their duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation (Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002).
Qualified Immunity Framework
To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, courts generally follow a two-pronged analysis:
Whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right.
Whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.
For a right to be clearly established, there does not need to be a case directly on point, but the unlawfulness of the conduct must be apparent in light of pre-existing law.
Key Cases in Florida
Several cases have explain the landscape of qualified immunity in Florida:
Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2002): This case involved a police officer who used excessive force against an arrestee: stopped the patrol car on the ride to jail; grabbed the arrestee forcibly, causing a bruise; and pepper sprayed her; all while handcuffed and secured in the rear of the police car, not posing a threat to anyone. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because the use of force was clearly excessive under the circumstances, thus violating clearly established law.
Florida Carry, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 564 F. Supp.3d 1213 (S.D. Fla 2021): This interesting case involves a gun rights advocacy group that often held open carry gatherings on fishing piers. Five members of the group went to a Miami Beach pier that is a popular tourist location (and relatively close to a cruise terminal and Coast Guard station) and essentially pretended to be finishing while open carrying pistols on their person. A Park Ranger called in visibly armed men and Miami Beach PD arrived. When officers observed the armed men, they drew their weapons, handcuffed the men, and disarmed them. They conducted an investigation for about one hour and 20 minutes, then released them men.
The court held that the officers acted reasonably: 1) the city had not received advanced notice of the event, 2) officers were dispatched on a call of multiple visibly armed men, 3) the officers saw 4 men open carrying firearms, 4) the men were not actively fishing, 5) it was not evident whether the men were categorically prohibited from openly carrying because of disqualifiers, and 6) the pier is a crowded recreational area that is located next to other busy and sensitive locations.
The court held that the fishing exemption for open carrying is merely affirmative defense to unlawfully openly carrying. And police officers are not required to consider whether an affirmative defense to firearm possession may apply before conducting a Terry stop to verify whether a person is lawfully carrying. .
Other cases:
Sebastian v. Ortiz, 918 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2019): police lieutenant was not entitled to qualified immunity when he arrested someone for a traffic offense (crime not severe); handcuffs were left on for 5 hours, causing permanent nerve injuries; no indication that the arrestee posed a threat to safety or was a flight risk.
Davis v. Waller, 44 F.4th 1305 (11th CIr. 2022): police officers were entitled to qualified immunity when plaintiff was taken hostage by a felon and forced to drive an 84,000 pound truck loaded with timber to escape pursuing officers, when the truck struck police cars and several officers opened fire into the truck, injuring plaintiff-hostage. The officers actions were reasonable to protect themselves and others, and to prevent the escape of the felon because he posed an imminent risk of serious physical harm or death to the officers.
Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2019): police officer attempting to make an arrest, ordered children to lie down in the yard then shot at the family dog, accidentally shooting someone in the knee, was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law made it apparent an officer could not do so.
Recent Developments
Qualified immunity remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates about its impact on accountability and justice. Recent movements and legislative efforts have sought to reform or abolish the doctrine, arguing that it often shields officers from liability even in egregious cases of misconduct.
In Florida, the doctrine has faced scrutiny, particularly in high-profile cases involving police shootings and excessive force. Advocates for reform argue that the current standards for overcoming qualified immunity are too high, effectively preventing many legitimate claims from reaching trial. Nevertheless, the doctrine remains the operative law.
Conclusion
Qualified immunity is a crucial legal doctrine that continues to evolve through case law and legislative action. In Florida, as elsewhere, it provides significant protection for police officers, balancing the need for effective law enforcement with the protection of individual rights. Understanding the nuances of this doctrine is essential for officers, legal practitioners, policymakers, and the public as discussions about its future continue.
Comments