False imprisonment tort claims are strict liability, unlike 1983 claims which allow for qualified immunity.

I'm sorry I don't understand the implications of that. Can you help me understand please?

"strict liability" means that regardless of the reason you did something or what you believed the circumstances to be, you are responsible for it "Your Honor she even had a fake driver license that said she was 18" Etc

Section 1983 is used to bring cases concerning a violation of a constitutional right. But even if the right is violated officers who did the violation may not be liable if they qualify for immunity, which means the right wasn't "well established" when they did it.

Thank you!

Usually that means a court hasn't ruled on it yet

Does qualified immunity apply if they weren't sworn officers?

No, but they were.

It would apply to anyone acting under "color of law" meaning they had legal authority and used it (improperly) to accomplish what they did

They were and so was the prosecutor (officer of the court) who refused to renegade him.

The "may not be liable" could be challenged, though? Also, can't they sue the feds? Wrongful imprisonment or some such?

Right, qualified immunity is a defense and the defendant has to show it applies. There is also the potential for a false imprisonment tort claims instead.

It's waaaaaaay harder to go after a prosecutor.

Release him. Autocorrect is pissing me off.

It's a terrifying rule. "The court has never seen an act of vicious cruelty *quite* like this before. This officer has immunity. We strenuously warn that the next officer who uses a belt sander as a compliance tool will not be so lucky, unless they change it up with some pepper spray or something!"

There are 2 issues. 1. As you mention, there's a lot of "thin slicing" to determine what is and isn't ruled on before. 2. The supreme court allows courts to determine immunity before determining the merits, meaning whatever issue continues to not be ruled on.

Ah, "Thin-slicing", very interesting, thank you, I was unfamiliar with this!

Don’t claims against federal LE for intentional torts end up running into the FTCA’s “discretionary function” exclusion though? Please tell me I’m wrong.

False imprisonment can be intentional or negligence. It depends. And so you'd have to determine if there was discretion or not

Didn’t know that, thanks! As to state officials involved, am I wrong that FL’s “immigration law” is preliminary enjoined from enforcement? If it is, then would’t this amount to a “clearly established” right not to be arrested thereunder even though the law’s constitutionality hasn’t been decided?

I haven't seen anything in the press indicating whether the officers who picked him up knew whether enforcement of the law was enjoined, or anything else regarding why they decided to arrest him (and others) using it.

Whether or not they knew that implementation of the law was enjoined seems immaterial to me given that the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis hinges only on whether a right was clearly established, not if the officer had actual, personal knowledge of the clearly established right.

There's no question his rights were objectively violated, the question is was the ignorance of the officer (if that's the defense) reasonable? I have no idea. 🤷‍♀️ :)

Oh, my. This is an interesting wrinkle. Some LE has chosen to (aggressively) ignore the injunction. www.miamiherald.com/news/local/i...

The FL AG should have done this on April 4th, when the law was preliminary enjoined. Regardless, cops who enforced the law prior to the AG’s instruction can’t rely on QI, because, again, an officer’s subjective knowledge of the injunction is irrelevant as to if the right was clearly established.

As of April 4, 2025, everyone in FL had the clearly established right not to be arrested under a law that a federal judge had enjoined the state from enforcing.