Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2996083" data-attributes="member: 13624">Not only would you lose, you probably wouldn't even survive a Motion for Summary Judgment, let alone a trial on the merits.  Immunity gets stronger the further you get from the tip of the spear; judges and prosecutors enjoy nearly-absolute immunity.  There is some reasonable rationale behind that--the judge isn't in the position of conducting his own independent investigation, so he (like the prosecutor) has to rely on what the officer tells him.  As long as the officer makes a prima facie case--a very low standard--and the judge didn't actively take a bribe for the warrant, he's going to be immune.  The chief as well--unless he was personally and directly involved with a violation of your civil rights, he's going to be immune to a personal suit.Incidentally, this principle applies to a degree in suits outside the government as well: if somebody injures you in the scope of his employment, you're entirely entitled to sue the employer as well as the individual.  It's call respondeat superior, the idea that a master is responsible for the acts of his servants or agents.  The idea is to encourage masters to exercise appropriate supervision of, and control over, their servants; we don't want them acting in a slipshod manner, then cutting their employees loose to twist in the wind when things go badly.  In practice, it's almost always advantageous to include the master as a defendant because he's more likely to have the deep pockets.  In the governmental context, it ends up being the taxpayers on the hook, who should exercise their supervisory power at the ballot box; if they're okay with writing big cheques on a regular basis, that's their business.  Not perfect by any means, but that's the rationale, anyway, and it is consistent with the private sector.</blockquote>

Verification