Immunity dip·lo·mat·ic: immunity (e.g. from taxation or prosecution) granted to a diplomat In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 pp. Ct. 2690, 73 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon was entitled to absolute immunity from liability based on his actions as President. In Nixon, a weapons analyst, A.

Ernest Fitzgerald, was fired from the U.S. Air Force after informing Congress of some cost overruns within the Department of Defense. Fitzgerald sued Nixon and two former presidential advisers for unlawful retaliation. Trans immunity of action [tran-zak-shə-nəl-, -sak-]: immunity from prosecution granted to a witness for an offence related to his or her compelled testimony — see also Use of immunity in this entry In Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 pp. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed.2d 272 (2001), the United States Supreme Court applied the qualified immunity test to an allegation that a United States secret service agent had used excessive force to deport a protester. The Court reiterated its general conviction that judges must persist in cases of doubt as to the legality of their actions in the exercise of their daily activities.

In addition, one of the main objectives of qualified immunity is to remove the defendant from the dispute as quickly as possible, thereby reducing legal costs. Justice Anthony Kennedy reaffirmed the principle that immunity is not a “mere defence” to liability, but an “immunity from prosecution.” Therefore, immunity issues should be resolved as soon as possible. As for the first step, Kennedy agreed that the case revealed a “general thesis” that excessive force violates the Fourth Amendment. However, a more specific investigation must take place to determine whether a reasonable public servant “would understand that what he or she is doing violates that right.” With respect to this second stage, Kennedy J. rejected the idea that, since the applicant and the agent were contesting certain facts, there could be no short-circuit of this stage. He said that “the concern of the immunity inquiry is to recognize that reasonable errors may be made with respect to legal restrictions on certain police conduct.” Officers have difficulty assessing the level of violence required in certain circumstances. However, if their error is reasonable in terms of “what the law requires, the public servant is entitled to the defence of immunity”. Official immunity: discretionary immunity from personal liability granted to public servants for offences and omissions Compare government immunity in this entry 4. The immunities provided for in this article are in addition to the common law immunity applicable to the public servant. Absolute immunity: immunity from personal civil liability without limitation or condition (as a condition of good faith) Compare qualified immunity in this entry Discretionary immunity: Immunity qualified from civil liability for tort or omission arising out of discretionary acts of a government employee performed in the performance of his or her duties, see also the Tort Claims Act in the “Important Statutes” section NOTE: The Federal Tort Claims Act includes an additional requirement to act in good faith for the discretionary immunity granted to the federal government. Diplomatic immunity, another well-known form of immunity, is governed by the rules of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and accepted by 187 countries.

The treaty stipulates that diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State and immunity from civil suits, except in the case of property or commercial interests unrelated to their diplomatic functions. In 1952, the U.S. Department of State responded to an increasing number of commercial transactions between the United States and other countries by recognizing foreign immunity only in non-commercial or public acts and not in commercial or private acts. However, it was easily influenced by foreign diplomats demanding absolute sovereign immunity, and the application of sovereign immunity became inconsistent, uncertain and often unfair. Native American tribes have been granted sovereign immunity status from the United States and, therefore, they generally cannot be prosecuted without the consent of Congress or the tribe. This immunity is justified by two considerations: First, with more limited resources and tax bases than other governments, Native American tribes are generally more vulnerable to prosecution than other governments. Second, granting sovereign national status to tribes is consistent with the federal policy of Indian self-determination. Prosecutors are completely immune to their actions in a trial or before a grand jury. However, during the investigation phase, they shall only enjoy qualified immunity. In Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S.

118, 118 pp. C. 502, 139 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity with respect to his or her actions that make an allegedly false statement of fact in an affidavit in support of an application for an arrest warrant. Among the political considerations deserving of absolute immunity were both the interest of protecting a prosecutor from vexatious litigation that would divert his time and attention from his official duties, and the interest of allowing him to render an independent judgment in deciding the charges to be laid and bringing them to court. These considerations did not apply when a prosecutor became an official witness by taking an oath of testimony. State and federal laws can grant witnesses immunity from prosecution if they use their testimony in court or grand jury.

Sometimes the testimony of a witness is so valuable to crime prevention and justice purposes that the promise to leave that witness unpunished is fair trade.