As a medical and emergency provider, I always believed I had some form of immunity for my actions as a firefighter or paramedic. As long as I stayed within the parameters of the instructions, training, and medical protocols, I was safe. Today, we are seeing an erosion of your qualified immunities based on actions formulated by yourselves while you’re treating patients, arresting the bad guy, or even providing life-saving services as a firefighter.
As we will see in this article, the short answer regarding your qualified immunity is yes. Qualified immunity protects police officers and generally protects firefighters and EMS providers, but the protection is narrower and more conditional than people often assume, and it is separate from other shields, such as state “Good Samaritan” statutes and sovereign immunity.<\/p>\r\n
What the doctrine actually is
Qualified immunity is a federal, judge-made defense to civil rights lawsuits brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, now codified at 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983. The controlling test comes from Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), which held that government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known about. Later cases layered on a two-part analysis and refined the “clearly established” prong, usually requiring a prior case with closely analogous facts (see Anderson v. Creighton, 1987).<\/p>\r\n
Important scope points people often miss:
\u2022 Qualified immunity shields only individual government actors, not the department or municipality itself (those get separate Monell analysis or state governmental-immunity treatment).
\u2022 It defends only against federal civil rights claims. It does not block criminal prosecution, internal discipline, termination, or most state tort claims.
\u2022 It reaches only “discretionary” conduct, not ministerial acts or clear violations of non-discretionary policy.<\/p>\r\n
Police
This is the doctrine’s classic home. Pierson v. Ray (1967) first extended a good-faith defense to officers making arrests, and Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) then set the modern standard. Anderson v. Creighton (1987) applied it to a warrantless search by an FBI agent.<\/p>\r\n
Recent illustrative outcomes:
\u2022 Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (2021). The Supreme Court reinstated qualified immunity for an officer who briefly placed a knee on a suspect’s back during an arrest because no prior case with sufficiently similar facts had clearly established that the conduct was unlawful.
\u2022 Jessop v. City of Fresno (2019). Qualified immunity was granted to officers alleged to have stolen roughly $225,000 in cash and rare coins during the execution of a search warrant because no prior case had clearly established that theft during a search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision.
\u2022 Taylor v. Riojas (2020). Qualified immunity was denied to Texas correctional officers who confined an inmate to filthy cells for six days. The Court held that the conditions were so obviously unconstitutional that no prior case on point was required, signaling an “obviousness” exception to the ordinary “clearly established” requirement.
\u2022 Hope v. Pelzer (2002). Qualified immunity was denied when prison guards handcuffed an inmate to a hitching post for hours in the sun. This case is another rare Supreme Court rejection of the defense.<\/p>\r\n
Firefighters
Firefighters receive qualified immunity when they act as state actors performing discretionary functions. The leading case is a firefighter case: Filarsky v. Delia (2012), a unanimous decision holding that a private attorney hired by the City of Rialto to investigate a firefighter’s suspected sick-leave abuse was entitled to the same qualified immunity as a full-time public investigator. The Court emphasized that immunity should not depend on whether a government worker is a full-time employee.
Qualified immunity does not automatically cover everything a firefighter does. In Roncales v. County of Henrico (2020), a federal district court declined to dismiss a firefighter’s First Amendment retaliation suit on qualified-immunity grounds, finding that her speech touched on a matter of public concern and that the right was clearly established.<\/p>\r\n
EMS and paramedics
EMS is the messiest of the three because coverage hinges on whether the provider is a “state actor” \u2014 a fact-intensive inquiry when the agency is a private contractor. Compare Filarsky v. Delia (2012) (extending immunity to a private attorney performing government work) with Tanner v. McMurray (2021) (refusing to extend Filarsky to a for-profit medical contractor providing care inside a jail).
Where EMS providers are treated as state actors, they generally do get qualified immunity for good-faith medical decisions:
\u2022 Buckley v. Hennepin County (2021) \u2014 Hennepin County EMS medics who administered ketamine to sedate a combative patient for transport were granted qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit joined the Sixth and Seventh Circuits in holding that fire and EMS personnel who restrain a combative patient should not be evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s excessive-force standard for police, because they act as medical responders, not law enforcement.
\u2022 Peete v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County (2007) \u2014 The Sixth Circuit’s foundational holding that paramedics providing emergency medical aid are not conducting a Fourth Amendment seizure.
\u2022 Thompson v. Cope (2018). The Seventh Circuit granted qualified immunity to a paramedic who administered a sedative during a medical emergency, reasoning that case law did not clearly establish that a paramedic’s medical judgment in an emergency violated the Fourth Amendment.
One clarification about the California case I cited earlier: Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles (1990) is often cited in EMS-immunity discussions, but strictly speaking, it applied California statutory immunity (Cal. Gov’t Code \u00a7 820.2 and Cal. Health & Safety Code \u00a7 1799.107), not federal qualified immunity under Harlow. The case remains useful because state discretionary-act immunity operates similarly for many day-to-day paramedic decisions.<\/p>\r\n
Where qualified immunity runs out
Qualified immunity fails when the right was clearly established or the violation was obvious \u2014 Taylor v. Riojas (2020) is the modern “obviousness” example. It also does not help at all with criminal charges. A growing number of states have limited or eliminated it as a defense to state civil rights claims (Colorado’s SB 20-217 in 2020 and New Mexico’s Civil Rights Act in 2021 are leading examples). Those state changes do not affect the federal \u00a7 1983 doctrine, but they meaningfully expand plaintiffs’ options in those jurisdictions.
To maintain your qualified immunity protections, it remains important that you follow your protocols and best practices. Doing the right thing for the right patient, person, or situation goes a long way toward recognizing the valuable protection we have in our industry. Failing to maintain your immunities in the long run can be an expensive, career-ending possibility.<\/p>\r\n
References
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987).
Buckley v. Hennepin County, 9 F.4th 757 (8th Cir. 2021).
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983.
Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012).
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002).
Jessop v. City of Fresno, 936 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2793 (2020).
Peete v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 486 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 2007).
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).
Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1 (2021) (per curiam).
Roncales v. County of Henrico, No. 3:19-cv-234, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55817 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2020).
Tanner v. McMurray, 989 F.3d 860 (10th Cir. 2021).
Taylor v. Riojas, 592 U.S. 7 (2020) (per curiam).
Thompson v. Cope, 900 F.3d 414 (7th Cir. 2018).
Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles, 223 Cal. App. 3d 232, 272 Cal. Rptr. 635 (Ct. App. 1990).<\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As a medical and emergency provider, I always believed I had some form of immunity for my actions as a firefighter or paramedic. As long as I stayed within the parameters of the instructions, training, and medical protocols, I was safe. Today, we are seeing an erosion of your qualified… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=520"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":526,"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520\/revisions\/526"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murphylawgroup.org\/firelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}