Sensible police reform includes changing ‘qualified immunity’ laws

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

This op-ed originally appeared in WGBH News, The Lowell Sun, The Fitchburg Sentinel & Gazette, Salem News, and the Gloucester Daily Times.

By Jim Stergios and Charlie Chieppo

Even in a time of painful divisions in our country, there is little doubt among people of good faith that what Derek Chauvin and three other former Minneapolis police officers did to George Floyd was criminal. If they are indeed convicted of a felony, how is it that the former officers could very well be immune from civil liability?

The answer lies in Harlow vs. Fitzgerald, a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case. There, the justices ruled that public officials should have “qualified immunity.” In practice, qualified immunity nearly exempts public officials from civil liability for their actions, no matter how egregious. The Court found that officials can only be found liable if they violate “clearly established law.” As applied to the Floyd case, it means that unless there is a federal case finding that kneeling on a person’s neck until the person dies is illegal, Chauvin wouldn’t incur civil liability.

If you think that couldn’t possibly be true, consider the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2019 decision in Baxter vs. Bracey. A panel of judges found that two police officers who unleashed a dog on a suspect who was sitting down with his hands up were entitled to qualified immunity because, even though an earlier ruling found that officers were not allowed to sic a dog on someone who was lying down, no case ever addressed whether the same was true for a suspect who was sitting with his hands up.

For Americans to have faith in our legal system, the system must be rational, and providing felons with immunity from civil liability doesn’t pass the smell test. Nor does the idea that public officials can violate our rights with impunity as long as they come up with a way to do it that no federal court has yet addressed.

In the wake of Floyd being killed, a bill introduced by Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan would bring us closer to the ideals outlined in the Constitution. Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley is among more than 50 co-sponsors of the “Ending Qualified Immunity Act.”

The need for such legislation was highlighted just this month, when the Supreme Court refused to hear several cases that challenge qualified immunity, including Baxter vs. Bracey.

Freedom from bad faith violations of our constitutional rights by those sworn to uphold them is among the most basic things we expect from government. We cannot have a healthy republic if public officials don’t respect our rights, and subjecting public officials who trample individual liberties to civil liability is the surest way to protect those rights.

Ending qualified immunity from civil liability would help restore faith in our system, ensure respect for constitutional rights and provide a fair remedy to George Floyd, his family and other victims of bad faith violations. Let’s use this moment of near unanimity about the horror of what was done to Floyd to prevent others from having their rights trampled by the very people we rely on to protect them.

Get Our COVID-19 News, Tips & Resources!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Browse our recent commentary:

Remove roadblocks for charter schools

Worcester, Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford, and other Gateway Cities in Massachusetts have large waiting lists for charter schools plus room to expand under state caps. What's needed are ways to curb obstructionist behavior that is blocking that expansion.

Opinion: Drug patents aren’t a ‘necessary evil.’ They save lives.

Drug patents are one of the most important public policy innovations in all of human history, and a boon to patients awaiting cures. Inventions only come when inventors are rewarded, not punished. Patents are not a “necessary evil.”

Teachers union wants ed reform money — but not accountability

MTA campaign against graduation test takes their stand to 'farcical…

A Federal Drug Discount Program for the Wealthy

The combination of legal disputes, a growing data repository and investigative reports have necessarily put the 340B Drug Pricing Program under the microscope. Combined with the fact that the policy lacks transparency, 340B has spiraled out of control to the point that no policymaker can ignore the need to look closer.

Licensing burdens thwart economic growth in Massachusetts

/
Immigrants account for 17% of Massachusetts residents but start a quarter of the Commonwealth’s new businesses. These entrepreneurs could create even more jobs that further lift wages and standard of living if not for the unnecessary obstacle of restrictive state and local occupational licensing laws.

Civics education is crucial to engaged citizenship

/
The Founding Fathers believed the main role of public education was not workforce development, but to create citizens prepared for informed participation in American democracy. Without this, they feared the nation might dissolve. Never have the founders looked more prescient.

Taxachusetts Must Be Stopped

Going back to the bad old days of Taxachusetts would be an almost unfathomable mistake. Between the $3 billion bombshell that upended the recent legislative session, the ambiguity about how the tax revenue will actually be spent, and the contrasting examples of neighboring New Hampshire and Connecticut, Bay State voters have plenty of reasons to come back to reality and reject the ill-conceived proposal to amend the Massachusetts constitution this November.

Harvard research points to ending drug cost help

A common grievance about Harvard is that the university is out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans. This perception is confirmed by recent research from Harvard Business School that contends patients should be denied assistance that helps them afford their prescription drugs. The Harvard study argues that in order to control drug prices, the government should deny patients’ access to copay assistance programs offered by drug manufacturers. It flies in the face of federal and state efforts to protect the value of such assistance programs for patients and ignores basic facts about how and when patients use copay assistance to access their medications.