Qualified immunity should stay

It is a valid question whether the civil rights bill the New Mexico Legislature passed in the usual flurry of legislation before its March 20 close protects individual rights or serves as a full-employment act for civil rights plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Especially concerning is the bill’s end of “qualified immunity” for police officers, which has been a feature of similar bills across the country in the wake of Black Lives Matter activism since the death of George Floyd. Floyd died on May 25 after his neck was pinned to the street under the knee of Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin for at least eight minutes.

In an online definition, the Cornell University Law School says qualified immunity “protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff’s rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional right.”

There’s a lot of leeway for public officials, especially police, in this definition, and I am going to break ranks with fellow Democrats and say that’s the way it should be.

Before its essay on the topic, Cornell offers this quote:

“Qualified 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.” This quote comes from a 2009 Supreme Court decision.

In theory, qualified immunity works both ways. In police matters, it offers protection for both police officers and those whom they arrest.

Why, if qualified immunity is designed to protect both officialdom and the public, is it now necessary to lift qualified immunity status for police officers?

Why, for instance, will qualified immunity apply to, say, New Mexico House Speaker Brian Egolf, a civil-rights attorney who pushed this law through the Legislature, and not to men and women who face life-and-death crises in the streets all too often while wearing official uniforms?

The new law says police officers can be sued as individuals but the already cash-strapped cities that employ them must insure them. Is this responding to legitimate civil rights concerns or increasing business for Egolf and his law colleagues? The law explicitly states legal fees are covered.

A serious effort to improve policing would start with examining the job of police officers, the often police-hostile neighborhoods they must patrol, and the screening and training police officers receive before hitting the unfriendly streets.

If police resolve that if there is trouble, they’re the ones who will go home, should they not be trained to understand they are more likely to go home by exercising patience and diplomacy rather than by drawing a gun or using brute force?

While we’re at it, should we not also examine why in some neighborhoods kids learn from birth to fear and hate police?

This issue has two distinct and valid, if opposing, sides.

It presents a great opportunity for bipartisanship and diplomacy, if we can find a way around artificial racial barriers and the walls Republicans and Democrats have built around themselves.

Steve Hansen writes for Clovis Media Inc. Contact him at:

[email protected]