it was august 11th 2014. i returned home
to find police in my yard i was taken
back i was
really surprised they then let me know
that they were looking for a suspect
my ex at the time i let them know that
he was there earlier that morning
but i wasn't sure if he was still in the
home at the time i gave the police my
keys when they asked if they could go in
and apprehend him
they then asked me to leave the premises
this is what she came back to they just
completely destroyed my house i mean i
had a
playpen near one of the windows and it
was just
full of glass shanice had expected the
police to use her keys to check inside
the house
instead they called in a swat team who
shot tear gas
through the windows her ex wasn't even
there
but the six-month pregnant chinese was
left to clean up the tear gas residue
and damage
in a now unlivable home i was just
immediately brought to tears it was the
first time of me even being on my own
in my own house and it was all taken
away
so she sued the police for the damages
and unreasonable search and seizure
arguing her consent to go inside the
house did not mean she consented to them
doing
this the federal court agreed saying the
police exceeded the scope of the consent
but they were still entitled to
something called qualified immunity
meaning the police were off the hook and
chinese lost
qualified immunity protects government
officials from lawsuits like hers
it's one of the many police protections
protesters of police brutality want to
see reformed
and its future may hinge on the 2020
election
qualified immunity is just that immunity
granted to government officials like
police officers when sued by regular
people who feel their constitutional
rights were violated by things like
excessive force or unreasonable search
for an officer to earn qualified
immunity it doesn't actually matter
whether or not someone's rights were
violated
what matters is whether the police
officer should have known they were
violating that person's rights
the idea stems from a 1980 supreme court
decision where the court argued the fear
of being sued might prevent the
unflinching discharge of their duties so
unless it was
clearly established that a government
official's actions were wrong
they can't be sued the trouble with
qualified immunity comes from how
specifically the courts have interpreted
the clearly established as wrong part
in 2016 a prison guard pepper sprayed a
man and himself for no reason
something he was given three months
probation for when he was sued by the
man for excessive force
he was given qualified immunity court
precedent had clearly established other
similar actions as wrong
like punching or tasing for no reason
but no previous case had specifically
condemned
pepper sprain therefore the court says
the officer
couldn't have known it was wrong
chinese's case played out in a similar
way
because don't excessively deploy tear
gas or destroy property when given
consent to enter a home
isn't a specific police policy and an
officer hadn't successfully been sued
for that specific action in the past
the officers were granted qualified
immunity before any of this happened i
had no idea what qualified immunity was
we turn law abiding citizens into
victims
that's that's not right
this strict interpretation of qualified
immunity has some of today's supreme
court justices
concerned that it tells officers they
can shoot first and think later
last year a georgia officer was given
immunity because
shooting a 10 year old while attempting
to shoot the non-threatening family dog
wasn't clearly established as wrong nor
was
don't tase a pregnant woman for not
signing a parking ticket
or don't stick a canine on a person
after they've already surrendered by
sitting on the ground with their hands
up
although don't stick a canine on a
person after they've already surrendered
by lying down
is actually an established precedent
from an older case
qualified immunity makes it hard to set
new precedent because
this officer wasn't successfully sued
the next
officer to do this will also have
qualified of unity it's a catch-22
these kinds of cases are why people
arguing for police reform
put ending qualified immunity for police
officers high on the list
and importantly it's one of the few
police reforms the federal government
can actually make happen
there are thousands of different police
departments in the u.s around 18
thousand
and different kinds of governments
oversee them with different levels of
authority
let's look at the minneapolis police
department for example which is
controlled by the city of minneapolis
if the city council wanted to make a
change to the police department's budget
or change one of their rules like when
they're allowed to use tear gas for
example
the city has that authority then there's
the state of minnesota whose government
can change
laws like requiring a public report of
misconduct
that would affect all police departments
in the state including minneapolis
the federal government of course has
oversight of all the states
if congress passes a law it applies to
everyone but congress doesn't have the
authority to tell these states
how to spend their money and most
changes to police policy
rely directly on a police department's
budget congress can do things like
influence states to make changes like
only giving out grant money to states
that report misconduct
but they can't pass a law to make state
police buy and wear body cameras or ban
them from carrying certain weapons
because these policies depend on money
and police departments are funded
primarily by
these local and state governments it's
really up to them to change the way
police
police except when it comes to things
that deal with constitutional rights
like
qualified immunity because it was
established in federal court
only the federal government has the
power to change it
the supreme court could take up a case
that involves it and rule to change the
precedent
something that several justices have
shown interest in but so far haven't
acted on
congress also has the power to reform
qualified immunity
in june the democratic held house of
representatives passed a bill that would
limit it for police officers but it's
not going to get a vote in the
republican-held senate
if a bill like this were to eventually
get through congress
it would need to get through the white
house before it became law and president
trump
likely wouldn't sign it whether they
like it or not you need immunity for the
police
presidential candidate joe biden has
included it as part of his police reform
plan as his runny mate describes
it's about reigning in qualified
immunity it matches their general police
reform stances
trump wants to strengthen police
protections while biden wants to see
more funding for
community-based police and focus on
reforming the criminal justice system
the results of the 2020 election both in
congress and the white house
could in some ways determine the future
of qualified immunity
and ending or limiting the practice
would result in more individual police
officers being held accountable for
their unconstitutional actions
but local governments are primarily what
fund the police
and control how they police so when it
comes to police reform in general
you have to start looking at people
running further down the ballot
thanks for watching this episode in our
2020 series we did a call out asking you
for what you think the candidate should
be talking about
and this was one of your top responses
joshua asked how do they plan to have
actual change in the way the country is
policed maria anna asked
what is going to happen with qualified
immunity and matthew said
i believe both of the candidates need to
more heavily address police reform
it is the most polarizing issue in our
country no matter which side of the
aisle you are on
but remember if you're a u.s voter the
president isn't the only person on your
ballot
your local elections can have a huge
impact on your daily life
so don't skip those we're still working
on more episodes and we'd still like to
know what you think the candidate should
be talking about
tell us at vox.com election videos