Qualified Immunity in United States

Qualified Immunity 

Qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for the torts they commit in the service of the government. It protects them “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

“Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by theplaintiff was not `clearly established’ or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful.” Romero v. KitsapCounty, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Furthermore, “[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; .. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).

The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Underthat law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?” Act-Up!, 988 F.2d at 871; see also Tribble v. Gardner, 860 F.2d321, 324 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1075 (1989).

Even where there has been a constitutional violation immunity will protect the government officer if he or she “could have reasonably believed that hisparticular conduct was lawful.” Romero, 931 F.2d at 627.

“[A] district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530(1985).

Qualified immunity only applies to the acts of the government official undertaken in the scope of their office.