In California, qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government officials, including law enforcement officers, from being held personally liable for monetary damages in civil lawsuits, as long as their conduct did not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. This doctrine aims to balance two important interests: the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to protect officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.

Here is a more detailed look at how qualified immunity works in California:

1. Federal vs. State Law

Qualified immunity primarily arises in the context of federal law, particularly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue state actors for civil rights violations. This doctrine is applied uniformly across all states, including California.

2. Application in Federal Cases

In federal civil rights cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity applies unless the plaintiff can show that:

The defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and
The right was "clearly established" at the time of the alleged misconduct.

The courts often follow a two-pronged analysis:

First Prong: Determining whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, show the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right.

Second Prong: Determining whether the right was clearly established at the time the official acted.

3. California State Law

Under California state law, there is no direct equivalent to qualified immunity. However, California's Tort Claims Act provides certain immunities and defenses to public employees, which can have similar effects in shielding government officials from liability.

свернуть