I appreciate @danepps reference to my research in his @nytimes oped. I agree that abolishing qi is not a cure-all. But I disagree with the conclusion that eliminating qi is "unlikely to alter police behavior." Here's why. 1/7 nytimes.com/2020/06/16/opi…
I agree that many other factors--not just qi--limit lawsuits' power & have studied some that Epps describes-officers are usually indemnified, police budgets are insulated from lawsuit costs, & there are other barriers to relief, including the Court's 4th Amendment standards. 2/7 
But eliminating qi would have more than symbolic power. FWIW, symbolic power on its own is important-qi decisions insulating officers despite egregious behavior tell officers they can violate people's rights with impunity & tell people their rights don't matter. H/t Sotomayor 3/7
But QI's power goes beyond symbolism. I interviewed plaintiffs' attorneys across the country & found that qi increases the costs, risks, and complexity of civil rights litigation - and those challenges, and others, discourage some lawyers from taking civil rights cases. 4/7
Eliminating qi would mean that courts would clarify the scope of constitutional rights, which would lead to more clarity in police department policies and procedures. The 1st A right to record police isn't clearly established in some circuits - ending qi should change that.5/7
And ending qi would probably mean that more cases would go to trial-which would would mean more transparency and greater focus would be on what should be the critical question in these cases—whether government defendants violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights.6/7
If you want to read more of my thoughts on the subject, you can @ColumLRev. columbialawreview.org/content/after-…. Of course ending qualified immunity is not a cure-all. But it's important to be specific about what it does and does not achieve. 7/7
