Ky Supreme Court case shows qualified immunity can even keep police from getting justice | Opinion

Defenders of qualified immunity — the legal doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability when they violate constitutional rights — often argue it’s needed to protect law enforcement officers. But what about when a police officer is the victim of another government agent’s misdeeds?

That’s the exact issue at stake in a case that the Kentucky Supreme Court recently agreed to hear. In 2018, then-Scott County Police Deputy Jaime Morales was partially paralyzed after he was shot in the back by then-Georgetown Police Officer Joseph Enricco during a standoff with a fugitive at a rest stop off I-75. After sustaining the life-changing injuries, Morales sued Enricco, Georgetown Police Lieutenant James Wagoner, the Georgetown Police Department, and the city of Georgetown, arguing that officers did not have adequate training. In his suit, Morales alleges Enricco had only completed Basic Response Team training, had been on no serious calls prior to the shootout, and had no vehicle assault training.

Unfortunately, Morales has run into the same legal hurdles that everyday Americans run into when their rights are violated by government officials. The circuit court ruled that the officer defendants in the case were entitled to qualified immunity because, “as a society, we have decided that law enforcement officers deserve special protection.” When Morales appealed that decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, it partly upheld the lower court’s decision. Now, Morales’ hopes for getting justice rest in the hands of Kentucky’s highest court.

The courts have essentially told Morales that Enricco cannot be held accountable for partially paralyzing him.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability so long as the right they violated is not “clearly established.” While that might not sound like a crazy standard, what it means in practice is that if a court has not ruled that the exact same facts constitute a rights violation, then the officer is entitled to immunity. This has led to some absurd conclusions. For example, one court held that police in Louisiana were entitled to qualified immunity after arresting a man at gunpoint for posting a joke about COVID-19 on Facebook. In New Mexico, a court ruled that a road-raging off-duty police officer was entitled to qualified immunity after the officer followed a man home, boxed him into his driveway, and held him at gunpoint with his daughter in the car.

And Morales’ case shows that even police officers and other government officials can become the victims of bad actions from government officials and find themselves with no means for holding those officials accountable. That’s what qualified immunity does: it creates a legal labyrinth that is impossible to navigate for any victim — police, ordinary citizens, military veterans, anybody.

If qualified immunity blocks innocent everyday citizens and innocent police officers from getting justice when their rights are violated, then who does this made-up legal doctrine really protect?

Dan King is a communications project manager at the Institute for Justice.