Solvency Ideas/Plans/Specific Standards Need a clear QI standard Kit Kimports, 2016, law professor, Penn State The Supreme Quiet Expansion of Court’s pp. 77-8 Qualified Immunity, Minnesota Law Review, DOA: 10-1-16, Given the distinction between Fourth Amendment rights and Court’s remedies, may not signal a retreat from the precedents Heien analogizing qualified immunity and the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Nevertheless, the amorphous suggestion Justices’ that qualified immunity is a rather than “forgiving” “demanding” standard—and the implication that public officials who make may nevertheless sat- isfy qualified “sloppy” errors immunity’s objective reasonableness inquiry— mirror the change in the tone used to characterize the qualified immunity defense that is discussed in Part I. Justice Sotomayor, dissenting in criticized the Heien, majority’s insistence on leaving the objective reasonableness standard “undefined” it was endorsing in that case as well as the failure to on “elaborat[e]” the distinction between that Fourth Amendment standard and the qualified immunity inquiry, predicting that the difference prove “will murky in Given the tendency to qualify its application.”69 Court’s precedents and thereby covertly expand the qualified immunity defense, it would not be at all surprising to find future § 1983 decisions citing in referring to qualified immunity as a Heien defense and in dismissing a government “forgiving” actor’s misunderstanding of constitutional doctrine as merely “sloppy” rather than incompetent “plainly Additional standards that can be used to protect plaintiffs when constitutional rights are violated Aaron Belzer, JD Candidate, 2012, Denver University Law Review, The audacity of ignoring hope: How the existing qualified immunity analysis leads to unmediated rights, 686-9 Although the concept of qualified immunity accepts this result once in order to further articulation of the law, the idea is to make the law more clear so that an unremedied constitutional violation does not happen repeatedly. n267 The Kerns court is, in effect, kicking the can down the road, waiting for the next case to make a decision about the right at Kerns stake instead of taking the opportunity to articulate constitutional law now. And, unfortunately, while that can is being kicked down the road, those future plaintiffs suffering similar constitutional harms will be left without any avenue for
Solvency Ideas/Plans/Specific Standards Need a clear QI standard Kit Kimports, 2016, law professor, Penn State The Supreme Court’s Quiet Expansion of Qualified Immunity, Minnesota Law Review, DOA: 10-1-16, pp. 77-8 Given the Court’s distinction between Fourth Amendment rights and remedies, Heien may not signal a retreat from the precedents analogizing qualified immunity and the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Nevertheless, the Justices’ amorphous suggestion that qualified immunity is a “forgiving” rather than “demanding” standard—and the implication that public officials who make “sloppy” errors may nevertheless sat- isfy qualified immunity’s objective reasonableness inquiry— mirror the change in the tone used to characterize the qualified immunity defense that is discussed in Part I. Justice Sotomayor, dissenting in Heien, criticized the majority’s insistence on leaving “undefined” the objective reasonableness standard it was endorsing in that case as well as the failure to “elaborat[e]” on the distinction between that Fourth Amendment standard and the qualified immunity inquiry, predicting that the difference “will prove murky in application.”69 Given the Court’s tendency to qualify its precedents and thereby covertly expand the qualified immunity defense, it would not be at all surprising to find future § 1983 decisions citing Heien in referring to qualified immunity as a “forgiving” defense and in dismissing a government actor’s misunderstanding of constitutional doctrine as merely “sloppy” rather than “plainly incompetent Additional standards that can be used to protect plaintiffs when constitutional rights are violated Aaron Belzer, JD Candidate, 2012, Denver University Law Review, The audacity of ignoring hope: How the existing qualified immunity analysis leads to unmediated rights, 686-9 Although the concept of qualified immunity accepts this result once in order to further articulation of the law, the idea is to make the law more clear so that an unremedied constitutional violation does not happen repeatedly. n267 The Kerns court is, in effect, kicking the can down the road, waiting for the next Kerns case to make a decision about the right at stake instead of taking the opportunity to articulate constitutional law now. And, unfortunately, while that can is being kicked down the road, those future plaintiffs suffering similar constitutional harms will be left without any avenue for
qualified-immunity-starter-file.docx