Search

The article focuses on the development of qualified immunity doctrine in the context of the Fourth Amendment to U.S. Constitution. Topics discussed include interests of Supreme Court related to the same; Harlow v. Fitzgerald court case involving the doctrines of qualified immunity and absolute immunity; Wilson v. Layne court case on the same; and impact of lack of constitutional development and subjectivity on the same.

The article discusses the Speech or Debate Clause which is contained in the U.S. Constitution, focusing on various judicial interpretations of legislative immunity in America by jurists such as former U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Marshall Harlan, Earl Warren, and Potter Stewart. The U.S. Congress and several American legal cases are mentioned, along with U.S. constitutional law and qualified immunity for official acts. Absolute immunity is assessed in relation to the U.S. Westfall Act.

The article discusses the law of remedies as of April 2014, focusing on the relationship between substantive and remedial law, as well as evidentiary exclusions and violations of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Rules of qualified and absolute immunity are addressed, along with injunctive and monetary relief in America. A harmless error legal rule is examined, along with public law adjudication in the U.S. Efforts to achieve disaggregation in the law are also examined.

The article offers information on the history, developments and significance of the application of the qualified immunity defense in U.S. Supreme Court decisions under the Section 1983 of the Title 42 of the U.S. Code. It informs that U.S. Supreme Court clarified the line of distinction between absolute immunity and qualified immunity in its opinion in the Rehberg v. Paulk case. It discusses the rulings in qualified immunity cases Richardson v. McKnight, Wyatt v. Cole, and Filarsky v. Delia.

In March 2003, FBI agents pretextually arrested Abdullah al-Kidd under the federal material witness statute. As a result, al-Kidd brought a Bivens action in federal district court against U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. The court denied Ashcroft's assertions of absolute and qualified immunity, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In Aschroft v. al-Kidd the U.S. Supreme Court correctly held that qualified immunity protected Asheroft against al-Kidd's lawsuit. But the Court's unnecessary conclusion that Ashcroft did not violate the Fourth Amendment is troubling. Not only did the Court expand the "objectively reasonable" test that is typically applied to law enforcement officers in the field but it also proposed a definition of "suspicion" that is at odds with its own precedent. The combined effect of these developments is an alarming ability on the part of authorities to avoid the probable cause requirement for arrest warrants. When an arresting authority's state of mind is shielded from constitutional scrutiny, and when the definition of suspicion is as broad as the Court has construed it, the result is the erosion of basic Fourth Amendment protections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses judicial immunity in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's ruling in the case Hemminghaus v. Missouri which deals with Missouri's plan for judicial selection and a question regarding how a judicial employee might properly deal with suspected child abuse. An absolute immunity doctrine is examined, along with the U.S. Supreme Court cases Stump v. Sparkman and Mireles v. Waco which address judges' immunity. A qualified immunity doctrine is assessed.