New Hampshire police chief is forced to apologize after recruitment pitch on Facebook listed 'qualified immunity' as a perk of the job

A police chief in New Hampshire quickly backtracked after a job recruitment listing on Facebook by his department offered 'qualified immunity' as one of the many 'unique' benefits of joining his Manchester force. 

'The department offers many opportunities to advance and additional unique benefits including qualified immunity,' read Tuesday's recruitment post - which has since been deleted. 

Allen Aldenberg, who did not write the listing, went on the social media platform hours later and took 'full responsibility' for the post. He called the mention of qualified immunity 'inappropriate.' 

 

After publishing a job recruitment listing on Facebook Tuesday, Manchester chief of police Allen Aldenberg was forced to apologize after the department listed 'qualified immunity' as one of the many 'unique' benefits of joining the department

In a follow-up apology on Facebook that same day, Aldenberg said he took 'full responsibility' for the post, calling the mention of qualified immunity 'inappropriate.'

But the damage had already been done. Advocates vying for police reform in New Hampshire immediately voiced their opinion online, demanding transparency and accountability from the department.   

'Another demonstration of what is seriously broken about the police mindset. They shouldn't be looking for candidates that see qualified immunity as a perk. That is an invitation to abuse the public,' one user wrote on Twitter.

'What a fancy way of saying 'You can literally do no wrong, even if you do it's alright, we've got it,' wrote another.   

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine recognized in 1967 by the Supreme Court which shields government officials, including on-duty officers, from being held personally accountable for constitutional violations. 

The doctrine has proven to be a complicated subject to navigate, igniting a heated debate on all isles of the spectrum, particularly after the killing of George Floyd. 

Advocates vying for police reform in New Hampshire immediately voiced their opinion online , demanding transparency and accountability from the department.

What is qualified immunity and how does it work? 

Recognized in 1967 by the Supreme Court, qualified immunity is a legal doctrine shielding government officials from being held personally accountable for constitutional violations. 

It protects a government official from a lawsuit alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights.

However, the origins of qualified immunity date back to 1871, after Congress created the federal right to sue state and local government officials for violating the Constitution under what's known as Section 1983. 

During the Civil War, white vigilantes in the South supposedly began attacking newly freed Black Americans, with law enforcement doing little to stop them.  

The doctrine has proven to be a complicated subject to navigate, igniting a heated debate on all isles of the spectrum, particularly after the killing of George Floyd.    

In 1982, the Supreme Court offered a new version of qualified immunity.

In the case Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the court ruled government officials have qualified immunity as long as they don't violate 'clearly established' rights that the officer would have to have been aware of.  

It is murky what constitutes as 'clearly established,' but over the past 40 years, the Supreme Court has 'made that standard more and more difficult to meet,' according to Joanna Schwartz, a professor of law University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. 

Although qualified immunity wasn't the issue in the prosecution of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin - who was convicted of killing Floyd - many believe it to be a systematic issue where holding police officers accountable for wrongdoing has become challenging. 

In New Hampshire specifically, police officers are given special protections not afforded to citizens in the private sector, according to the ACLU.  

Better known as New Hampshire's 'Laurie's List,' the list contains the names of more than 270 New Hampshire police officers whose credibility and truthfulness may be called into question during a trial because of past behavior.

For example, an officer's name could be added to the list for incidents relating to lying under oath or falsifying evidence. 

However, the list is private and the public is left unaware which officers in their jurisdiction have previous issues pertaining to their truthfulness or credibility.

In April, the New Hampshire State Senate passed a bill by unanimous vote for the list to be made public. 

Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled the list is not confidential, justices did order the lower court to issue a 'balancing test' on whether releasing the entire list would violate the privacy expectations of the officers. 

According to the bill, officers on the 'Laurie list' were given 180 days to appeal their status to a superior court. Officers whose names were included on the list since April 30, 2018, were given 90 days to appeal. 

Once those deadlines had expired, the Attorney General would post the list to a public website. 

In March, the New York City Council passed legislation ending qualified immunity for police officers in cases of excessive force and unreasonable searches. 

The move was spurred on by the police killing of Eric Garner, who died after cops used an illegal chokehold to subdue the Staten Island man. 

The council said the legislation 'would end qualified immunity for police officers in New York City by creating a new local civil right protecting New Yorkers against unreasonable search and seizures and against excessive force and ban the use of qualified immunity, or substantially equivalent immunities, as a defense.'  

'Today we provide the people of New York City an important tool for accountability when law enforcement violates their rights,' Council Member Stephen Levin said in March. 

'This legislation is simple—it creates a set of civil rights here in New York City, mirroring those conferred by the 4th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, so that people in New York City can hold officers accountable if those officers violate their civil rights. It eliminates the shield of Qualified Immunity to allow victims the opportunity to seek justice.'

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also voiced his support for the legislation, which would be the largest jurisdiction in the U.S to restrict the qualified immunity defense.     

'These reforms will confront centuries of over-policing in communities of color and strengthen the bonds between police and community,' de Blasio said. 'Together, we'll make our city safer and fairer for generations to come.'