A sheriff’s deputy from Pulaski county was found to not have qualified immunity for mistakenly charging a woman with drug distribution. Qualified Immunity is a judicially created doctrine that gives certain government officials immunity from civil suits related to acts done in their job. The modern iteration of qualified immunity stems from the case Harlow v. Fitzgerald, where the court moved from a subjective good faith standard to forcing the plaintiff to show that the government official broke clearly established law. In general courts have moved toward a more government friendly position since Harlow v. Fitzgerald. With qualified immunity under more scrutiny today, it appears as if judges may be more willing to hear cases on their merits and not jettison them at summary judgement.
U.S. District Judge Thomas T. Cullen denied summary judgment to a sheriff’s deputy in Pulaski county by not following standard practices in a police investigation. The officer used a confidential informant to buy drugs from a resident. The officer then wrongly presumed from the information provided by the informant that the suspect was Linda Trail. The officer would subsequently obtain and indictment against the woman.
Judge Thomas Cullen found that the officer was objectively deficient in investigation in numerous ways that lead to him securing an indictment. First, the informant gave the name “Lynn” to the officer. Lynn also lived with a man who was named “Jason Ayers.” Secondly, Judge Cullen found that the use of a 9-year-old photo of Linda Trail that the informant was not able to confirm the identity of the drug seller was wrong. Judge Cullen then pointed to numerous ways that the officer could have helped his investigation from these issues. The officer could have looked at connections to Jason Ayers, do surveillance of the residence, run the names through a criminal database, or look at a previous criminal record.
Qualified immunity is a safeguard from government officials being sued for things they did that were reasonable in the course of their employment. It should never be allowed to be asserted to grab an indictment against a person when the officer does not have probable cause to do so. This case may be the start of numerous cases where the federal bench takes a closer look into an officer’s actions, and starts to determine what is objectively reasonable for a police officer to do instead of rubber stamping a motion to dismiss.
Read More: https://valawyersweekly.com/2020/10/29/no-immunity-for-officer-who-charged-wrong-suspect/
