,i  #aafth ,,congress  #b;d ,session    
,h4 ,r4 #giea  ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of  
,,representatives  ,august #g1 #bjbj,mr4
 ,banks introduced the following bill2  
which was referred to the ,committee on 
the ,judiciary  ,a ,,bill  ,to amend the
 ,revised ,statute to codify the defense
 of qualified immunity in the case of   
any action under section #aigi1 and for 
other purposes4  #a4 ,short title ,this 
,act may be cited as the ,qualified     
,immunity ,act of #bjbj4  #b4 ,findings 
,congress finds the following3 7#a7     
,qualified ,immunity is intended for all
 but the plainly incompetent or those   
who knowingly violate the law and is    
meant to give government officials      
breathing room to make reasonable       
mistakes of fact and law4  7#b7 ,the    
,supreme ,court has observed that       
qualified immunity balances two         
important interests1 the need to hold   
law enforcement officers accountable    
when they exercise power irresponsibly  
and the need to shield officers from    

harassment1 distraction1 and liability  
when they perform their duties          
reasonably4  #c4 ,codification of       
qualified immunity  7a7 ,in general     
,section #aigi of the ,revised ,statutes
 7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #aihc7 is amended-- 7#a7
 by inserting 7a7 ,in general-- before  
,every person2 and  7#b7 by adding at   
the end the following new subsection3   
7b7 ,applicability to law enforcement   
officers  7#a7 ,a law enforcement       
officer subject to an action under this 
section in their individual capacity    
shall not be found liable if such law   
enforcement officer establishes that--  
7,a7 the right1 privilege1 or immunity  
secured by the ,constitution or ,federal
 law was not clearly established at the 
time of their deprivation by the law    
enforcement officer1 or that at this    
time1 the state of the law was not      
sufficiently clear that every reasonable
 law enforcement officer would have     
understood that the conduct alleged     
constituted a violation of the          

,constitution or ,federal law2 or  7,b7 
a court of competent jurisdiction had   
issued a final decision on the merits   
holding1 without reversal1 vacatur1 or  
preemption1 that the specific conduct   
alleged to be unlawful was consistent   
with the ,constitution and ,federal     
laws4  7#b7 ,a law enforcement agency or
 unit of local government who employed a
 law enforcement officer subject to an  
action under subsection 7a71 shall not  
be liable for such action if the law    
enforcement officer is found not liable 
under paragraph 7#a7 and was acting     
within the scope of their employment4   
7c7 ,definitions ,in this section3 7#a7 
,law enforcement officer ,the term law  
enforcement officer means any ,federal1 
,state1 ,tribal1 or local official who  
is authorized by law to engage in or    
supervise the prevention1 detection1    
investigation1 or the incarceration of  
any person for any violation of law1 and
 has statutory powers of arrest or      
apprehension1 including police officers 

and other agents of a law enforcement   
agency4  7#b7 ,law enforcement agency   
,the term law enforcement agency means  
any ,federal1 ,state1 ,tribal1 or local 
public agency engaged in supervision1   
prevention1 detection1 investigation1 or
 the incarceration of any person for any
 violation of law1 and has statutory    
powers of arrest or apprehension4  4    
7b7 ,effective date ,the amendments made
 under subsection 7a7 shall take effect 
on the date that is #ahj days after the 
date of the enactment of this ,act4