If a police officer violates your rights, you should be able to hold them accountable, right? Unfortunately, a legal doctrine called Qualified Immunity often stands in the way. Created by the Supreme Court (see Harlow v. Fitzgerald), this rule shields government officials from liability unless their conduct violated "clearly established" constitutional rights.

What Does "Clearly Established" Mean?

It's not enough to prove the officer did something wrong. You often have to prove that a court has previously ruled that specific action in specific circumstances was illegal. This creates a "catch-22": if no one has sued for it before, the law isn't "clearly established," so the officer gets immunity.

How We Fight Back

At Ringo Legal, we specialize in Section 1983 litigation. We meticulously research case law to find the precedents needed to pierce this shield. We also look for distinct violations—like "obvious" brutality—where the violation is so egregious that specific precedent isn't needed.

The Future of Immunity

There is a growing movement to end or limit Qualified Immunity. While the doctrine stands today, we are committed to challenging it in every case we file.