Udvidet returret til d. 31. januar 2025

The Affirmative Defense of Qualified Immunity for Law Enforcement - Landmark Publications - Bog

- Volume 2

Bag om The Affirmative Defense of Qualified Immunity for Law Enforcement

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues raised when law enforcement officers assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). As the Supreme Court has explained, "[q]ualified immunity balances two important interests-the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Id. * * * "The qualified immunity analysis entails two general steps, which can be considered in any order." Godawa v. Byrd, 798 F.3d 457, 462-63 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236, 129 S.Ct. 808). "First, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right? Second, is the right clearly established?" Seales v. City of Detroit, 724 F. App'x 356, 359 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306, 311 (6th Cir. 2006)). "To qualify as clearly established, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Kindl v. City of Berkley, 798 F.3d 391, 398 (6th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Lewis, 779 F.3d 401, 412 (6th Cir. 2015))."[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of showing that an officer is not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity." Courtright v. City of Battle Creek, 839 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Johnson v. Moseley, 790 F.3d 649, 653 (6th Cir. 2015)). Rafferty v. Trumbull County, Ohio, 915 F. 3d 1087 (6th Cir. 2019)

Vis mere
  • Sprog:
  • Engelsk
  • ISBN:
  • 9798657212310
  • Indbinding:
  • Paperback
  • Sideantal:
  • 542
  • Udgivet:
  • 29. juni 2020
  • Størrelse:
  • 152x229x28 mm.
  • Vægt:
  • 717 g.
  • 2-3 uger.
  • 10. december 2024
På lager

Normalpris

  • BLACK NOVEMBER

Medlemspris

Prøv i 30 dage for 45 kr.
Herefter fra 79 kr./md. Ingen binding.

Beskrivelse af The Affirmative Defense of Qualified Immunity for Law Enforcement

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues raised when law enforcement officers assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). As the Supreme Court has explained, "[q]ualified immunity balances two important interests-the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Id. * * * "The qualified immunity analysis entails two general steps, which can be considered in any order." Godawa v. Byrd, 798 F.3d 457, 462-63 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236, 129 S.Ct. 808). "First, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right? Second, is the right clearly established?" Seales v. City of Detroit, 724 F. App'x 356, 359 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306, 311 (6th Cir. 2006)). "To qualify as clearly established, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Kindl v. City of Berkley, 798 F.3d 391, 398 (6th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Lewis, 779 F.3d 401, 412 (6th Cir. 2015))."[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of showing that an officer is not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity." Courtright v. City of Battle Creek, 839 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Johnson v. Moseley, 790 F.3d 649, 653 (6th Cir. 2015)). Rafferty v. Trumbull County, Ohio, 915 F. 3d 1087 (6th Cir. 2019)

Brugerbedømmelser af The Affirmative Defense of Qualified Immunity for Law Enforcement



Gør som tusindvis af andre bogelskere

Tilmeld dig nyhedsbrevet og få gode tilbud og inspiration til din næste læsning.