Messerschmidt Vs. Millender: Case Study

Unit 6 DB 2
Qualified Immunity

The Messerschmidt v. Millender (2012) case was very interesting, because it discussed qualified immunity, and if certain government officials are protected under this doctrine from legal responsibility for “civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate obviously established” (“Messerschmidt v. Millender”, 2012, p. 8), constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. So, what is qualified immunity? This learner believes that it is about an government officer or agency is being litigated in federal court for civil rights damages that are “based on alleged violations of the plaintiff 's Fourth Amendment rights, you 're entitled to "qualified immunity" from suit if your actions, though unjustifiable, did not violate clearly-established law” (Rutledge, 2015, para. 7). Now, according to Rutledge (2015, para. 8) the Supreme Court pointed out that whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held legally responsible for an allegedly unlawful action generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action.
Especially where the alleged Fourth Amendment defilement encompasses a “search or seizure pursuant to a warrant, the fact that a
…show more content…
Creighton (1987). In Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 639 (1987) which mention that an official who is sheltered by qualified immunity doctrine, might be held personally or legally responsible for supposedly unlawful official action that can generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, that was assessed in light of the legal rules that were obviously established at the time it was

Related Documents