Originally Posted by JimDandy
I was under the impression it was a hodge podge. Some aspects of government had qualified immunity, some didn't. Part of this is tickling the back of my brain over the Watergate scandal.. some of those guys weren't prosecuted because they had a reasonable belief what they were doing was lawful, or some such...
It's pretty well settled that gov't officials have immunity. The hodgepodge ares are: (1) what kind of immunity; and (2) what the standards are.
A gov't official could have:
- sovereign immunity
- qualified immunity
- prosecutorial immunity
- judicial immunity
- legislative immunity
It used to be that there was a "good faith" element to qualified immunity. That's now gone (in the 8th circuit, anyway), and there's a reasonableness immunity. You also have to look at whether the right violated was "clearly established" at the time of violation.
So yeah, I can see how it might look like a hodgepodge.