imported post
mcdonalk wrote:
And an officer never has the discretion to violate the rights of a citizen based on their interpretation of an unclear law.
Actually, that's not the case.
According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, "Even constitutionally impermissible conduct might not render government officials liable for civil damages if those actions had not been clearly established as violative of the Constitution when they occurred."
Carr v. Tatangelo, 338 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir. 2003).
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right."
Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 816 (2009).
In the Eleventh Circuit, "If reasonable public officials could differ on the lawfulness of the defendants' actions, the defendants are entitled to immunity."
Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1231 (11th Cir. 2004).
The U.S. Supreme Court has also held, "If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate."
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001).
Again, the U.S. Supreme Court has said, "The protection of qualified immunity applies regardless of whether the government official's error is a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact."
Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009).
I do agree with yourassertion that the legislature has a responsibility to clarify the law.
