The Obvious Problem With Eliminating Qualified Immunity For Police

The Obvious Problem With Eliminating Qualified Immunity For Police.  Accountability matters. But forcing police officers to gamble their careers and families’ futures on split-second decisions could make every community less safe.

By John J. “Jay” Wiley
Retired Baltimore Police Sergeant and Host of the Nationally Syndicated Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast

There is an obvious problem with eliminating qualified immunity for police officers, yet it receives surprisingly little attention.

Police officers are expected to run toward danger, make life-or-death decisions in seconds and protect people they have never met. They usually do this with incomplete information, conflicting witness statements and no way of knowing what the next moment will bring.

Now imagine asking them to do all of that while wondering whether one reasonable mistake could destroy their career, consume years of their life in court and threaten their family’s financial future.

That is not an abstract legal debate. It is a public-safety issue.

I spent years wearing a badge as a Baltimore police officer. I know the difference between reviewing an encounter from a comfortable room and living it on the street.

A video can be stopped, rewound and studied frame by frame.

The officer inside that moment cannot press pause.

That reality must be part of this conversation.

What Qualified Immunity Actually Does

Qualified immunity is often described as though it gives police officers permission to violate people’s rights without consequences.

That is not what it does.

It is a legal doctrine that can protect government officials from personal liability for civil damages when their conduct did not violate a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time.

The Supreme Court has described the doctrine as balancing two important interests: holding officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and protecting them from harassment, distraction and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. Pearson v. Callahan. 

Qualified immunity does not prevent criminal prosecution. It does not prohibit an agency from investigating, disciplining or firing an officer. It does not erase every civil claim, and it does not automatically protect someone simply because that person wears a badge.

It is qualified immunity, not absolute immunity.

That distinction matters.

LISTEN TO THE FREE LAW ENFORCEMENT TALK RADIO SHOW AND PODCAST

The Difference Between Misconduct and a Reasonable Mistake

Let me be clear: Police officers who intentionally violate constitutional rights, falsify reports, plant evidence, use clearly unlawful force or commit crimes should be held accountable.

The badge must never become a shield for corruption or cruelty.

But there is an enormous difference between intentional misconduct and a reasonable mistake made during a rapidly unfolding emergency.

Police officers regularly walk into situations where almost nothing is clear. A caller may report a gun that turns out to be something else. A suspect may reach suddenly toward a waistband. A domestic-violence scene may involve several people screaming contradictory versions of what happened.

An officer may have seconds to decide whether someone is reaching for identification or a weapon.

The officer does not know how the encounter will end.

Everyone reviewing it later does.

That knowledge changes how an incident appears. Hindsight can make a confusing moment look obvious when it was anything but obvious to the person standing in the middle of it.

The Obvious Problem: What Happens When Officers Hesitate? This is the question that must be asked.

What happens when a police officer begins thinking about a future lawsuit while confronting an immediate threat?

What happens when officers stop making proactive contacts because every encounter carries another layer of personal risk?

What happens when they hesitate before entering a violent home, confronting an armed person or pulling a stranger from danger?

In police work, hesitation can cost lives.

It can cost the life of the victim waiting for help. It can cost the life of another officer. It can cost the life of an innocent bystander. It can also cost the life of the officer who paused at exactly the wrong moment.

This does not mean officers should act recklessly.

It means the law must allow reasonable officers to make reasonable decisions under unreasonable circumstances.

READ FREE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE

Defensive Policing Has Real Victims

Eliminating qualified immunity without a carefully designed replacement could encourage defensive policing.

Officers may still answer emergency calls because they are required to do so, but they may become less willing to initiate investigations, question suspicious behavior or take action before violence occurs. Many state that this has already been happening across the United States of America.

The public rarely hears about the crimes that never happened because a proactive officer intervened. Nobody writes a headline about the robbery prevented, the illegal gun recovered before it was fired or the violent offender stopped before another victim was created.

When proactive policing disappears, those invisible victories disappear with it.

The consequences are often felt first in communities already suffering from violent crime. Many residents in those neighborhoods want both better policing and more effective protection.

Those goals are not opposites.

We should never force communities to choose between constitutional policing and public safety. They deserve both.

Who Will Still Be Willing to Wear the Badge? Police departments are already struggling to recruit and retain qualified officers.

Now imagine trying to persuade a thoughtful, responsible young person to enter law enforcement while explaining that one disputed decision could follow that officer through court for years.

Experienced officers may decide the risk is no longer worth it. Potential recruits may choose another profession. Spouses and parents may urge their loved ones to stay away from police work entirely.

That leaves departments understaffed.

Understaffing produces longer response times, heavier workloads and more mandatory overtime. Exhausted officers carrying too many calls are not a formula for better decisions.

Here is the uncomfortable irony: eliminating qualified immunity may drive away the careful, conscientious people communities most want behind the badge while doing little to deter the few who never cared about the law in the first place.

The Financial Reality Is More Complicated Than the Slogan

Supporters of eliminating qualified immunity sometimes argue that individual officers should personally pay when constitutional violations occur.

But the financial reality is far more complicated.

Government agencies frequently defend or indemnify officers under state law, local policy or labor agreements. If that continues, taxpayers may still bear much of the cost. If it stops, an officer of ordinary means may never be able to satisfy a large judgment.

Meanwhile, cities and counties could face higher insurance costs, increased litigation expenses and larger settlements.

Every dollar spent there is a dollar that cannot be used for better training, stronger supervision, modern equipment, mental-health resources or additional officers.

A reform can sound tough while producing very different results on the street.

Accountability and Protection Are Not Opposites

This debate is too often reduced to two extreme positions.

One side is accused of wanting police officers to operate without accountability. The other is accused of wanting to punish every officer for every bad outcome.

It is not that simple.

We can protect the public from official misconduct while also protecting good officers from personal liability for reasonable, good-faith decisions.

We can demand transparent investigations, meaningful discipline and criminal prosecution when justified. We can also recognize the reality of split-second decision-making.

Real reform should distinguish among intentional misconduct, recklessness, poor training, unclear policy and an objectively reasonable mistake.

Those are not the same things, and justice is not served by pretending they are.

LISTEN TO THE FREE PODCAST WITH MORE THAN 850 EPISODES

Reform the System Without Crippling the People Who Protect Us

Qualified immunity should not be beyond criticism. No legal doctrine should be.

But replacing it requires more than a slogan.

Lawmakers should consider clearer use-of-force standards, better training, independent investigations of serious incidents and early-warning systems that identify patterns of misconduct. Agencies that tolerate repeated violations or fail to train and supervise their officers should face meaningful consequences.

Reform could preserve protection for reasonable decisions while allowing cases involving obvious or intentional misconduct to proceed.

It could also place greater responsibility on agencies when their policies, training or supervision contributed to a constitutional violation.

The objective should be better policing, not more fearful policing.

The Conversation We Need to Have

After years as a police officer and countless conversations with officers, survivors and families on the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast, I have learned that public-policy slogans rarely capture the human cost.

Behind every police encounter are real stories, real people and real consequences.

The goal should never be to protect bad officers.

The goal should be to protect the public, hold intentional wrongdoers accountable and ensure that good officers can make lawful, good-faith decisions without gambling their careers and families’ futures every time they answer a call.

If eliminating qualified immunity causes officers to hesitate, withdraw from proactive policing or leave the profession entirely, the consequences will not remain inside courtrooms.

They will be felt on our streets, in our neighborhoods and inside the homes of people waiting for help.

That is the obvious problem and it deserves far more attention.

Listen to the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast on our website and most major podcast platforms. Please listen, follow and share.