(UN)qualified immunity? Public support for qualified immunity in policing

Qualified immunity, as defined by the Supreme Court case Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 800 (1982), grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ In the context of law enforcement, reformers contest that qualified immunity should be removed for the sake of advancing police reform by providing a means for police accountability. Through a national-level survey (N = 921), this study observationally and experimentally examines support for qualified immunity. Findings suggest that nearly half of the respondents support qualified immunity. However, the support for the ability to sue police officers is largely contingent on the situation. Experimental vignettes find support for the ability to sue officers, particularly in situations resulting in a civilian death. Implications for qualified immunity are discussed.