After nationwide protests erupted following the tragic killing of George Floyd, the calls to abolish the doctrine of qualified immunity have intensified dramatically. Legislatures are answering the calls for police reform by introducing bills that would eliminate the qualified immunity defense. While it is crucial to re-examine the doctrine itself, legislatures around the country should proceed with caution before disposing of the immunity.

Ultimately, the doctrine of qualified immunity allows police officers to provide the highest possible standard of protection and care to the public without fear of being held personally liable unless they violate clearly established law.

Generally, governmental actions that require the exercise of discretion but are not judicial or quasi-judicial are entitled to "qualified immunity," meaning that they are immune from liability unless performed in bad faith or without a reasonable basis. Signature Health Ctr., LLC v. State, 28 Misc. 3d 543, 902 N.Y.S.2d 893 (Ct. Cl. 2010), aff'd, 92 A.D.3d 11, 935 N.Y.S.2d 357 (2011). Qualified immunity's function is to protect government officials from liability for damages when performing discretionary duties as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Alex LL. v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Albany Cty., 60 A.D.3d 199, 872 N.Y.S.2d 569 (2009).