What is Police Immunity?
Qualified Immunity shields law enforcement officers from civil lawsuits and monetary damages for alleged violations of statutory or constitutional rights. While that protection does not apply to violations of “clearly established” rights, the law might still guard them from a lawsuit even if an officer’s actions were objectively wrong.
This protection imposes significant challenges for those pursuing lawsuits against individual officers and government officials. Therefore, if you are a police brutality or misconduct victim considering legal action, representation by a knowledgeable civil rights attorney is crucial. Police Brutality Center can connect you with legal help today
Were you or a loved one a victim of police brutality?
Attorneys that work with Police Brutality Center may be able to assist you.
"*" indicates required fields
Content Last Updated: September 30, 2025
Key takeaways
- Police officers are protected from civil lawsuits and monetary damages even if their actions were objectively wrong.
- Qualified Immunity makes it more difficult to hold police officers accountable, but it does not necessarily mean justice isn’t obtainable.
- The Police Brutality Center can connect you with experienced civil rights attorneys in your area who can answer questions about your case and advise you on your next steps toward justice.
Legal Foundations of Police Immunity
Qualified immunity is a modern concept with roots in the common law “Good Faith Defense.” It shields law enforcement officers from lawsuits brought under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Section 1983 provides that government employees and officials can be held personally liable for damages if they violate a person’s constitutional rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized the “Good Faith Defense” in 1967 in Pierson v. Ray, finding that police officers were protected from liability if they believed their actions were lawful and based on probable cause, regardless of whether their actions violated someone’s rights. The Supreme Court reshaped the concept in its 1982 Harlow v. Fitzgerald decision, holding that officials could have immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
In Harlow, the court also distinguished qualified immunity from absolute immunity. The latter doctrine offers complete and total protection from civil liability to public officials for actions within the scope of their official duties. This doctrine protects judges, prosecutors, legislators, executive officers, and the president of the United States.
In the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court held that courts must consider whether force used by a police officer was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them at the scene, rather than on later reflection of the incident
How Police Immunity Works in Practice
- City of Tahlequah, OK v. Bond: Three officers responded to an emergency call from a woman whose ex-husband, Dominic Rollice, was intoxicated and refused to leave her home. Officers confronted Rollice in the garage, where he grabbed a hammer. The officers drew their guns and demanded that he drop the hammer. He instead moved toward them, raising the hammer higher, and the officers fatally shot him. Rollice’s family sued, arguing that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. The trial court quickly dismissed the case. However, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case, saying legal precedent allowed the officers to be held accountable. In 2021, the Supreme Court determined the cases cited by the 10th Circuit did not apply or weren’t relevant to Rollice’s case.
- Jessop v. City of Fresno: Police officers accused of stealing more than $225,000 in cash and rare coins while executing a search warrant were granted immunity. The plaintiffs alleged that the theft violated their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the court had never previously held that theft during a search warrant violates constitutional rights. Thus, there was no violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right.
- Taylor v. Riojas: Trent Taylor was a prisoner housed at a psychiatric prison in Texas after a suicide attempt. Prison employees confined Taylor for six days in an unsanitary cell. Taylor was not allowed clothing, nor was he given access to a restroom or necessary medical care. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the conditions violated Taylor’s Eighth Amendment rights. Despite that, the court held that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because prior case law referenced cruel conditions that lasted for longer periods than Taylor had experienced. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, saying there was no need for a case so specifically similar when the facts of the current case so clearly offend the Eighth Amendment.
Impact of Police Immunity on Victims of Police Misconduct
Qualified immunity makes it difficult to hold officials and law enforcement officers accountable for their misconduct. A victim must show that the police officer violated a clearly established right. Courts have interpreted this to mean there must be a legal precedent with near identical facts that makes it undoubtedly clear the officer’s actions were unconstitutional.
The lack of law enforcement accountability due to qualified immunity can potentially snowball into other issues for victims of police misconduct. For instance, people who experience police misconduct are more likely to suffer physical violence. In addition to the pain and suffering, victims could face growing medical bills and the inability to make a living as a result of their injuries.
Seeking Justice: Next Steps for Victims of Police Misconduct
How to initiate a lawsuit based on police misconduct may vary from state to state. However, regardless of where you pursue legal action against an officer or police department, you can strengthen your efforts by gathering all available evidence, filing a police report, and consulting an experienced civil rights attorney as soon as possible.
Gather Evidence
Document the incident as thoroughly as possible. This can be done by taking photographs of any injuries, recording witness statements, and collecting any video footage of the encounter. This evidence will be crucial should you decide to pursue legal action. Other key details to note include the following:
- Physical descriptions of the officers involved
- The officers’ badge numbers
- Police car numbers
- A chronological statement of what happened
- The location and time of day of the incident
File a Report
File a report with the police department and as many agencies as will accept it. This shows how seriously you take the misconduct you allege. While filing a report might not always lead to immediate action, it is an essential step in building a record of the incident.
The process for reporting misconduct can vary depending on where the incident occurred. The police department’s website may include information about how to file a complaint against a law enforcement officer and instances of police brutality. In addition, several federal laws address police misconduct, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Police Misconduct Provision under Title 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Therefore, you may consider filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.
Seek Legal Counsel
Speak with attorneys who are experienced in police immunity, civil rights, and police misconduct cases to gain a better understanding of your rights and legal options.
If you or a loved one were victims of police misconduct, get legal help with the assistance of the Police Brutality Center. We will connect you with an experienced civil rights attorney in your area who can answer questions about your case and advise you on your next steps.