Opinion ID: 686479
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kelm's Claim Against the Columbus Police Officers

Text: 39 First, assuming the validity of Kelm's allegations, the Columbus police officers are nonetheless protected by qualified immunity. Public policy and well established law grant qualified immunity to those government officials who perform discretionary functions and whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 808, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2732-33, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217-18, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful action generally turns on the 'objective legal reasonableness' of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). 40 Clearly, citizens must be afforded due process before a deprivation of life, liberty or property. Here, however, when the officers executed the CPO, Sec. 3113.31 was constitutional and its procedures were presumed adequate. Thus, there was no clearly established law with which the officers failed to comply. Instead, the officers rightfully executed a CPO pursuant to a presumably constitutional statute. The officers, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity and Kelm's damages claim against them must fail.