Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill_in_SD
Question about Qualified Immunity, since it is in the Motion to Dismiss. Small, but it is there.
Is this where the Sheriff cannot be sued in the performance of his duties unless something like negligence or fraud can be proven?
|
Someone who is an attorney may have better info than me, but here goes:
You should read the California
government code ยง 821. It goes through all the ways that California government entities are immune, even if they do things that are wrong and malicious:
Quote:
A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his
instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding
within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and
without probable cause.
|
Oh and if the public employee is enforcing an unconstitutional law, he's immune so long as he's not acting with malice:
Quote:
820.6. If a public employee acts in good faith, without malice, and
under the apparent authority of an enactment that is
unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable, he is not liable for an
injury caused thereby except to the extent that he would have been
liable had the enactment been constitutional, valid and applicable.
|
Read all the other sections in 821. Their immunity is extreme and covers just about all situations, including acting maliciously and so on. Civil rights violations are one of the few places where they
don't have immunity.
Someone else can probably explain this better than I can.