The California Supreme Court ruled that police officers can be liable in civil court for misconduct that occurs during an investigation. The decision significantly broadens liability for law enforcement, rolling back years of decisions protecting the police from litigation.

The case concerned the conduct of several sheriff’s deputies in Riverside County. The officers left a man’s nude body lying in plain sight for the better part of a day while they investigated his death. The deceased man’s wife sued the county, alleging the officers’ treatment of her late husband caused her emotional distress. The county argued that the deputies and the county were immune from liability.

Qualified immunity for police officers has become a hot-button issue in recent years. Law enforcement officers and other public officials are typically granted a limited shield against civil liability for acting in accordance with their duties. Immunity is meant to allow public officials to do their jobs without being bogged down by incessant civil claims for every minor misstep or frivolous claim of injury. Civil rights advocates, however, argue that police and other officials have relied on broad interpretations of immunity to shield actual bad actors from liability.

Federal and state law confer different levels of immunity for different actors. In this instance, the county relied on California’s Government Claims Act. Section 821.6 grants immunity to public entities for “injury caused by instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of their employment,” even if the employees act “maliciously and without probable cause.”

The county essentially argued that section 821.6 immunity extended to “all conduct related to the investigation and filing of charges,” no matter how harmful. The county’s argument was based on a series of lower court and appellate court decisions over the last few decades that utilized a broad interpretation of the immunity granted by the Act. The trial court and the intermediate court of appeals agreed with the county, ruling the deputies could not be held liable.

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ruled that the relevant provision of the Government Claims Act was meant to protect the government against claims of malicious prosecution and was not meant to “broadly immunize police officers or other public employees for any and all harmful actions they may take in the course of investigating crime.” Other provisions of the Act “may confer immunity for certain investigatory actions,” but police are not given carte blanche to commit negligent or malicious injury just because they happen to be in the midst of a criminal investigation.

Richard Antognini, the plaintiff’s attorney, lauded the decision, claiming that a ruling to the contrary “would have essentially immunized for almost anything” they do from “the moment a police officer arrives on the scene of the crime.” He was quick to note, however, that this decision would not open the floodgates for claims against the police. Other defenses and specific claims for immunity persist. “It's not going to change the landscape,” Antognini said. “But it will make some of these lawsuits easier to bring and to prosecute.” Other civil rights advocates have been celebrating the decision as well, hoping that it will have a positive impact on police reform.