How Does “Qualified Immunity” Apply to Police Officers in Connecticut?
In the wake of George Floyd’s death during an arrest and other high-profile incidents involving excessive force used by police, many individuals, civic groups, and politicians have called for police reform and the end of a doctrine known as qualified immunity. These sources claim that qualified immunity allows police officers “to get away” with murder and assault. However, these calls reflect a deep misunderstanding of the doctrine of qualified immunity and how and under which circumstances it applies.
The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity
The doctrine of qualified immunity is a U.S. legal principle that protects government officials, including law enforcement officers, from civil liability for actions taken in the course of their duties. Qualified immunity does not apply if plaintiffs can show that the government official violated their clearly established constitutional rights or the official did not have an objectively reasonable belief that they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.
Criminal Prosecution
Under federal and state law, the doctrine of qualified immunity only applies to civil liability. It does not apply to or immunize police officers from criminal prosecution. Therefore, officers who engage in criminal conduct during the course of an arrest can be criminally prosecuted for any such activity and are not, and have never been, protected by qualified immunity.
Incidents Involving Excessive Force
When claims involve excessive force, qualified immunity almost never applies. While the law does not explicitly prohibit the application of qualified immunity to excessive force claims, the doctrine’s practical application is extremely limited because the test for when an officer engages in excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment is similar to the test for qualified immunity. Specifically, an officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he uses physical force found to be unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances at the time of the incident.
Consideration is given to many factors, including the nature of the force used by the officer, the nature of the underlying crime, and any resistance by the arrestee. On the other hand, qualified immunity for claims of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment means that an officer is immune from liability if his actions do not violate any clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment or the officer had an objectively reasonable belief that his actions did not violate any clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment. Basically, the officer is given the benefit of the doubt in very close calls. There is little daylight between these two tests; for qualified immunity to apply, you would have to find the rare circumstances where the force used by the police officer was unreasonable, but the officer still had an objectively reasonable belief that the force used was reasonable. This would require a great deal of mental gymnastics, by the fact finder. Typically, a judge or jury would simply determine whether the force used was excessive or not, and the analysis would end there; qualified immunity would never be decided. If a court sides with a police officer and dismisses a claim of excessive force based on qualified immunity, the court has determined that the conduct was not excessive or unreasonable.
Therefore, any clearly egregious conduct or conduct that would result in a criminal prosecution would not fall within the limits of qualified immunity. In fact, in most, if not all, of the high-profile cases of excessive force that have been well publicized over the last five to 10 years, the plaintiffs were awarded civil settlements or jury awards. Qualified immunity has not shielded any of these officers from civil or criminal liability.
Incidents Involving Minor Uses of Force
Qualified immunity may come into play for incidents involving relatively minor uses of force that generally do not result in physical injury. For example, courts have held that claims stemming from handcuffing alone, absent any physical injury, cannot constitute excessive force and, therefore, would be subject to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity has also applied when a police canine makes contact with an arrestee with its front paws but does not bite or otherwise inflict any physical harm or injury. There are other examples of incidental contact between police officers and arrestees, without physical injury, in which qualified immunity would also be available.
Claims of False Arrest
In the realm of alleged police misconduct, the doctrine of qualified immunity is more applicable to claims of false arrest. In those cases, a court can usually determine, based on the undisputed facts, whether an officer had probable cause to make an arrest or whether it was reasonable for the officer to believe that he had probable cause to make an arrest. In those cases, qualified immunity would apply.
Qualified Immunity under Connecticut Law
Relative to federal law, Connecticut state law further narrows the applicability of qualified immunity by making it easier for individuals to sue police officers in certain situations. In Connecticut, the doctrine of qualified immunity only applies to claims of negligence, as opposed to willful or malicious actions, and would not prevent a plaintiff from pursuing civil claims for intentional acts such as assault or wrongful death based on an intentional tort.
The Takeaway
The doctrine of qualified immunity recognizes that police officers occasionally make mistakes while dealing with a wide variety of events in the field and that the officers and municipalities should not be subject to civil liability for those relatively minor mistakes. Such liability could cause officers to unnecessarily second-guess themselves in the field or even fail to take particular actions to protect themselves and others out of fear of being sued. It would also subject both the officers and their employers to unnecessary and wasteful litigation costs, which would place an additional burden on the taxpayer.
However, qualified immunity would not and has not prevented civil liability for the more obvious and egregious claims publicized over the last several years. Therefore, the call to end qualified immunity for police officers is misguided and based on a lack of understanding of the doctrine.
Robert A. Rhodes, a partner at FLB Law and a seasoned litigator, has represented numerous municipalities in Connecticut in claims ranging from negligence to police misconduct and civil rights violations. He also represents various clients in premises liability, negligence, product liability, wrongful death, negligent security, and motor vehicle accident-related matters. Contact Bob at rhodes@flb.law or 203.635.2200. For more information about FLB Law, click here.