The reasonably unreasonable police officer: A paradox in police civil liability jurisprudence

Abstract

Qualified immunity is a defense available to law enforcement officials in Section 1983 lawsuits alleging constitutional violations. Whether qualified immunity is granted hinges on the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions; that is, on what a reasonable officer would have done under the circumstances. However, when a plaintiff alleges a Fourth Amendment violation, another objective reasonableness test is used. The result can be a paradoxical finding of reasonably unreasonable conduct. The present study examines this quizzical feature of civil liability law and seeks to clarify the role that both objective reasonableness tests play. In doing so, it examines the varying definitions of objective reasonableness, reviews a number of court decisions where the Fourth Amendment and qualified immunity have collided, and makes recommendations for minimizing future confusion.

Citation

Worrall, J.L. (2001), "The reasonably unreasonable police officer: A paradox in police civil liability jurisprudence", Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 449-471. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510110409566