In Parts I and II, the concept of qualified immunity was discussed, as was the origin of the doctrine. Also noted was the fact that those who wished to remove this “good faith” protection for police officers in the legislative and judicial branches of government were making no efforts to eliminate the immunity that they enjoyed. In Part III, examples of “good faith” violations were explored, and the implications for removal of the protection were discussed.
In the decision released in Caniglia v. Strom earlier in May of 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) affirmed that the police officers who entered Caniglia’s home and confiscated his firearms without a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate were not entitled to qualified immunity. In essence, Justice Thomas was announcing in the majority opinion that the police officers who had acted in this manner after being explicitly denied permission from Caniglia should have known that their actions did not comport with the safeguards enshrined in the Constitution, and that Caniglia should have the opportunity to make the case before a jury that his civil rights were violated by the actions of the officers.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that the officers had acted pursuant to the “community caretaker exception” to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. As the Fourth Amendment protects the people from “unreasonable” searches, numerous doctrines have been constructed that may make a warrantless search or seizure “reasonable” in the way that a search based upon a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate based on probable cause is presumed reasonable. These are the doctrines that allow for customs searches at the border, searches of the homes of probationers and parolees, and urine drug screens of transportation or other workers without warrants, based on the exigencies and special needs or circumstances of certain governmental functions. These are often evolving and quite complex, and outcomes can turn on a pattern of facts or a specific circumstance that can render an action constitutional or unconstitutional. Unlike legal decisions that are made in the comfort of court rooms and judge’s chambers, or legislation that is subject to study in committee, hearings and debate, these are often on-the-spot decisions that have immediate impact on liberty and safety. As such, good training can aid in creating sound judgment, but rarely is there time for deliberation when there is an urgent need to act.
The Community Caretaker Doctrine recognizes that there are functions of government employment, including law enforcement, that may involve investigations for circumstances that are not initiated for the purpose of enforcing a law, but may become such as events unfold. Many cases have involved highway patrol officers coming upon a stopped vehicle to see if assistance is required, and uncovering evidence of criminal activity during the course of the encounter.
In the case of Caniglia, during an argument with his wife, Caniglia is said to have produced an unloaded handgun and suggested that she just shoot him at that time and get it over with. She subsequently left the home and when she failed to reach him by telephone the following day, she called police and asked them to check and make sure he hadn’t harmed himself. When she and the police arrived at the home and explained their purpose to Caniglia on the porch of his home, he denied that he was suicidal. In response to their concerns that he might be a risk to harm himself or others, Caniglia did agree to go to the hospital and submit to a mental health evaluation, but expressly refused to let the officers enter his home or seize his firearms. Once he left, they did exactly that, and the lawsuit followed.
In using the Community Caretaker Doctrine to render the search and seizure in this case reasonable, SCOTUS believed that the government and lower courts had exceeded the limits of the exception previously articulated by extending it into the home in a non-emergency situation in the absence of probable cause that a crime was committed or that a warrant for same was issued.
In concurring opinions, the SCOTUS did not kill off the doctrine altogether, or even completely eliminate the applicability to the home in some circumstances, but all justices agreed that this was not a circumstance where the officers acted in a manner where they entered the home and seized the firearms without a warrant, that they could not or should not have known that a constitutional right was implicated and potentially violated.
It is important to understand that the SCOTUS decision did not resolve the claim, it merely removed the qualified immunity defense. While the jurisdictions and officers involved could still prevail on other facts or the jury could find for them, or they could settle with Caniglia; they no longer have this exemption from suit.
This case serves to demonstrate the “qualified” nature of qualified immunity. Unlike the absolute immunity enjoyed by legislators and judges in their respective functions, executive branch employees enforcing law may only enjoy immunity where it is not clear that their actions are civil rights violations. Entering the home and seizing the protected property of someone for whom there is not probable cause that a crime has been committed and a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate is not considered a reasonable search, and in these circumstances the officers along with their agencies will be required to answer personally.
Should qualified immunity for law enforcement officers be eliminated, almost any action can be considered a civil rights violation, and this will cease to exist as a screening tool for litigation. This will likely lead to the type of law enforcement response everywhere that Baltimore has experienced since 2015 in the wake of the death of Freddie Gray and the riots that followed.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: AFNN_USA
Qualified immunity should rely on the idea that the given law enforcement officer acted according to his training and his own moral and ethical compasses, not to deviate from them, which relies on the good practices of hiring and training of police officers.
Qualified immunity, if it follows that pretext, should not be eliminated, but guarded because of the nature of the police officer engaging in his lawful duties. That’s not to harm the police officer, but to guide him in doing his job properly, and eventually to lead back to serving and protecting, which is a concept that the Supreme Court has already said they do not have to perform as part of their day to day primary reasons for existence.
We need a functioning and capable law enforcement system, since we believe in God, and believe in God’s justice(judgement), which is the basis for the justice man has to sort out, daily.
The word “Qualified” should have the meaning I mentioned, and have no other.
When we play by the rules, we don’t need the police. It’s when things go wrong that they are necessary to protect us from evil. God set the framework for justice. We should always try to live in his image. The same goes for those charged with enforcing man’s laws, also. Overall, the times when I have been exposed to cops, it has only been with one or two traffic stops, or the occasional assistance I have given them, and they have given me, which have all been positive, so I respect and appreciate the police officer.
But, as the saying goes, there are a few rotten apples in every barrel. We should keep the rotten apples out of that barrel as best we can, and concentrate on the positive effects on society that police officers have on the communities we live in.
We don’t need robo cops. We need to strive for excellence.