Why do we need QI for, e.g., city clerks? Because otherwise every permit issuing decision that they make as part of their job that pisses someone off would result in a lawsuit.
Why do we need QI for police committing murder? We don't.
No, it didn't; QI was established in a case accusing Nixon White House officials of corruptly steering government contracts, which is not “doing your job appropriately”.
And QI doesn't apply to everything, but it is a giant catch-22:
It covers anything without clearly established law on the violation of rights (usually, court precedent with very similar circumstances) at the time of the act. But, simply by its own operation, it prevents cases in which it is applied from establishing such law, because it produces dismissals before the merits are reached. (In some cases, lawsuits against the government entity could establish the violation, but their are a different set of immunities there, plus a hugh propensity for cases with even a shadow of a chance to settle without establishing precedent.)
> Why do we need QI for police committing murder? We don't.
QI doesn’t apply to criminal charges (other cops covering for cops and prosecutors not wanting to hurt their relationships with cops are the only “immunity” cops have there, but that alone is a bigger problem than QI; it does compound the problem with QI, because criminal cases are another venue not subject to QI where the clear precedent on rights could be established, if prosecutions actually occurred, and also because the resort to civil lawsuits that QI blocks is, for cops more than any other class of public officers, a workaround for the criminal justice system being loathe to act against them.)
Usually, QI leads to a dismissal before the merits are reached; the entire basis for QI is that it is not just a freedom from liability, but a freedom from the risk of having to endure trial. Even if the trial court decides QI doesn't apply and would be inclined to move forward to the merits, that decision on QI is subject to immediate appeal before the case moves forward, per the Supreme Court in Mitchell v Forsyth (1985).
So, even if this case is an exception, QI is very much a catch-22 that is a barrier to establishing the same clearly established law that it requires before officers can be held liable.
It's horrifying and clearly not the right way of handling the "well we don't want everybody suing the DA that prosecuted them" problem.
Having said that the example, there was no warrant and the sheriff had no reason to do what they did within the normal function of the job (sharing people's nudie pics...) ... that should be EASILY outside the bounds of QI
This case seems like the poster child where IQ enters he realm of of absurdity and degrades people's lack of trust in institutions. It also seems like an example where a more reasonable form of QI would thrive.
It requires that a court had previously ruled that the specific action was a violation of constitutional rights. It had not done that on this specific action previously, but did in this case.
So they get QI here because of a lack of a previous ruling, but if the someone were to do the same thing in the future, they would not be given the benefit of the doubt.
How do you square your comment with that observed reality?