Channels, Fall 2017

Page 58 Minich • The Right Balance: Qualified Immunity and Section 1983 wrong time and failing to reveal himself to the police.” 2 And it’s plausible that the reason Maney did not reveal himself is that he was worried he would have startled the officer and dog if he did. 3 Even if that were not a realistic fear, it is fair to say that anyone in his situation would be frozen in fear. Maney’s innocence and misfortune are uncontested. From Officer Garrison’s point of view, Maney’s actions sparked a “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” situation. More specifically, Officer Garrison faced the horrified shock of finding out that a man was hiding in bushes just feet from him for no clear reason. 4 Garrison also instinctively knew that his K-9 was trained to only attack in very specific circumstances: when the K-9 was commanded to, when the K-9 encountered the tracked suspect, or when Garrison or the K-9 were attacked. 5 Thus, he would have good reason to believe that “the two were hiding together or had recently been in close contact.” 6 In far less time than it takes to explain these reasons, Officer Garrison had collected and processed all the information necessary to decide that it was safe to call off his K-9. In those few seconds, he was rightfully looking out for the safety of his colleague and himself. As the court acknowledged, “threats to officer safety are not imaginary, and [] police are often asked to intervene at a moment’s notice in tense, difficult situations, on the basis of imperfect information and with little time for deliberation.” 7 Is it really reasonable to expect officers to act instantly and correctly in the face of life-threatening situations? A third consideration goes beyond Garrison, Maney, and their unfortunate encounter. How will the outcome of the case affect officers in the future? If Garrison were excoriated for his mistake, would other officers fear that they risked legal action for defending themselves and their fellow officers? On the other hand, would letting Garrison off the hook with no consequences contribute to a sense of exemption from law and encourage a lack of care in policing? These perplexing questions are at the heart of legal analysis in many lawsuits against police officers and have played a shaping role in the jurisprudence of lawsuits against officers. This paper addresses lawsuits against officers, specifically focusing on a longstanding legal doctrine known as qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability, given that a certain set of conditions are met. 8 Looking at the interplay between lawsuits against officers and qualified immunity reveals a difficult balancing of important values, which is constantly complicated by changing circumstances and unintended consequences. Beginning with the statutory and historical basis for such litigation and discussing the cases that significantly impacted this jurisprudence, we will examine these values and their related jurisprudential doctrines. Along the way, we will discuss the many issues that arose in constructing this jurisprudence, as well as how the Supreme Court has attempted to mitigate these problems. In the end, we will discuss 2 Ibid., 8. 3 Ibid., 6. 4 Ibid., 21. 5 Ibid., 4. 6 Ibid., 18. 7 Ibid., 22. 8 Based on Black’s Law Dictionary 818 (9th ed. 2009).