If you’re not familiar with qualified immunity, let United States District Court Judge Carlton Reeves set you straight:
No, Clarence Jamison was a Black man driving a Mercedes convertible.
As he made his way home to South Carolina from a vacation in Arizona, Jamison was pulled over and subjected to one hundred and ten minutes of an armed police officer badgering him, pressuring him, lying to him, and then searching his car top-to-bottom for drugs.
Nothing was found. Jamison isn’t a drug courier. He’s a welder.
Unsatisfied, the officer then brought out a canine to sniff the car. The dog found nothing. So nearly two hours after it started, the officer left Jamison by the side of the road to put his car back together.
Thankfully, Jamison left the stop with his life. Too many others have not.
The Constitution says everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law – even at the hands of law enforcement. Over the decades, however, judges have invented a legal doctrine to protect law enforcement officers from having to face any consequences for wrongdoing. The doctrine is called “qualified immunity.” In real life it operates like absolute immunity.
In a recent qualified immunity case, the Fourth Circuit wrote:
Although we recognize that our police officers are often asked to make split-second decisions, we expect them to do so with respect for the dignity and worth of black lives.
This Court agrees. Tragically, thousands have died at the hands of law enforcement over the years, and the death toll continues to rise. Countless more have suffered from other forms of abuse and misconduct by police. Qualified immunity has served as a shield for these officers, protecting them from accountability.
This Court is required to apply the law as stated by the Supreme Court. Under that law, the officer who transformed a
short traffic stop into an almost two-hour, life-altering ordeal is entitled to qualified immunity. The officer’s motion seeking as much is therefore granted.But let us not be fooled by legal jargon. Immunity is not exoneration. And the harm in this case to one man sheds light on the harm done to the nation by this manufactured doctrine.
As the Fourth Circuit concluded, “This has to stop.”
There’s a lot of opinion out on the Web regarding this opinion, much of it far more learned than I. But I think Reeves has served the public by repeating a message that desperately needs to be heard: everyone should be held responsible for their actions, from the worst criminal to the law enforcement responsible for catching that worst criminal. Qualified immunity may have been viewed as a way to protect law enforcement from frivolous lawsuits, but it has encouraged those worst elements of law enforcement to engage in activities which are not conducive to a prosperous, stable society, because they know they cannot be officially punished for them.
They can be admonished, as Reeves does with McClendon, above, but that’s hardly the same thing as spending time in the pokey.
Qualified immunity is a bad idea, and it must be banned.
