What do you think?
Rate this book
Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable
An urgent and definitive examination of how the legal system prevents accountability for police misconduct, from one of the country's leading scholars on policing
In recent years, the high-profile murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and so many others have brought much-needed attention to the pervasiveness of police misconduct. Yet it remains nearly impossible to hold police accountable for abuses of power--the decisions of the Supreme Court, state and local governments, and policy makers have, over decades, made the police all but untouchable.
In Shielded, University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Joanna Schwartz exposes the myriad ways in which our legal system protects police at all costs, with insightful analyses about subjects ranging from qualified immunity to no-knock warrants. The product of more than two decades of advocacy and research, Shielded is a timely and necessary investigation into why civil rights litigation so rarely leads to justice or prevents future police misconduct. Weaving powerful true stories of people seeking restitution for violated rights, cutting across race, gender, criminal history, tax bracket, and zip code, Schwartz paints a compelling picture of the human cost of our failing criminal justice system, bringing clarity to a problem that is widely known but little understood. Shielded is a masterful work of immediate and enduring consequence, revealing what tragically familiar calls for "justice" truly entail.
In recent years, the high-profile murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and so many others have brought much-needed attention to the pervasiveness of police misconduct. Yet it remains nearly impossible to hold police accountable for abuses of power--the decisions of the Supreme Court, state and local governments, and policy makers have, over decades, made the police all but untouchable.
In Shielded, University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Joanna Schwartz exposes the myriad ways in which our legal system protects police at all costs, with insightful analyses about subjects ranging from qualified immunity to no-knock warrants. The product of more than two decades of advocacy and research, Shielded is a timely and necessary investigation into why civil rights litigation so rarely leads to justice or prevents future police misconduct. Weaving powerful true stories of people seeking restitution for violated rights, cutting across race, gender, criminal history, tax bracket, and zip code, Schwartz paints a compelling picture of the human cost of our failing criminal justice system, bringing clarity to a problem that is widely known but little understood. Shielded is a masterful work of immediate and enduring consequence, revealing what tragically familiar calls for "justice" truly entail.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published February 14, 2023
86 people are currently reading
5078 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
January 1, 2024
Schwartz explains why it is so difficult to hold police officers accountable when they abuse their authority. A barrier of protections has been erected to shield police even in cases where their behavior causes great harm and the evidence is clear. Schwartz notes that police are charged in less than 2% of fatal shootings and convicted in fewer than one-third of those. The widespread attention to headline cases such as the George Floyd murder causes local officials to prosecute police, but most people who have suffered from unnecessary police violence get stonewalled if they try to seek redress. Schwartz is a UCLA law professor and attorney who has taken these types of cases. She illustrates the practical and legal obstacles to police accountability presenting case after case in her book. These take up most of the book and make for a gripping if disturbing read. My notes focus on some key obstacles she points out. These helped me understand why the problem of police abuse is so persistent and unlikely to change anytime soon.
Most families and victims of civil rights violations, including violent ones resulting in significant injury or death, don’t have the resources to bring a case. Simply reporting it to police internal affairs departments usually goes nowhere. Local and state laws, courts, judges, and juries favor police over plaintiffs. Civil Rights cases taken to federal courts have more of a chance but even people with a well-documented case typically can’t find a lawyer. Few lawyers are willing to take such cases as they are very difficult to win and rarely pay enough to support the lawyer’s practice. Even successful cases usually end in settlements that fall far short of covering the cost of the lawyer’s time. And few lawyers have the experience needed to navigate the significant legal obstacles in these complex cases. When they do take a case, they want one with strong evidence, serious physical injury or death, and a victim who will present exceptionally well to a jury. This leaves out the vast majority of victims.
The biggest barrier in a federal case suing police for damages is Qualified Immunity. This legal standard established by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution holds that police cannot be held responsible for damages even if they violated the Constitution. They must have violated “clearly established law” which has a very narrow definition. The Court holds this to mean a case with identical circumstances has already been found by a court to be a violation of law. If the case being brought differs in any respect from a prior successful case, it will be dismissed. And that holds even if the judge agrees that the victims civil rights were violated. Even if a victim can find a lawyer and get the case to trial, the case is likely to be dismissed because of Qualified Immunity.
Qualified Immunity also is not subject to the final judgement rule which holds that appeals can only be filed after the case has been decided. A ruling during the trial that goes against the police, for example regarding discovery, can be appealed immediately stopping the trial. This can be repeated for each adverse ruling delaying the trial sometimes for years and driving up the legal expense significantly. This is another reason lawyers don’t want to take these cases. But this is in line with the Court’s stated purpose of Qualified Immunity which is to protect police from having to go through discovery and trial.
When a case is successful the police officers themselves rarely pay any part of the settlement or damages. The money is taken from the department’s or jurisdiction’s budget. The taxpayers pay and the offending police continue as before. Except for high profile cases, they are typically not disciplined. If a settlement is reached, the police officers are not involved and frequently not aware of the outcome. Schwartz provides example after example. In her own experience in New York City she found police officers were unaware of how many times they had been sued or the resolution of ones they were aware of. The legal department handled everything. Thus, suing the police has little impact on police behavior.
Federal civil rights cases against police began in 1961 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Monroe v. Pape. Chicago police without a warrant broke into the Monroes’ home, waking James Monroe, his wife and six children. The police held James and his wife at gunpoint standing naked in front of their children while they ransacked the house. They assaulted and terrorized the Monroe family including the children. James Monroe had no involvement in the murder being investigated and was released after a ten-hour detention. The real murderer later confessed. The Monroes’ filed suit in federal court under a law passed after the Civil War. It made it to the Supreme Court which decided in the Monroes’ favor under what is now called Section 1983. The ruling still stands, but subsequent conservative Courts have severely limited it with restrictive interpretations such as Qualified Immunity. The court’s reasoning revolves around baseless arguments that they need to protect the police from frivolous law suits so they can do their job.
A Court decision in 2007, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly made bringing a Federal civil rights suit much more difficult. In this case about price fixing by phone companies the Court decided the complainants had to not only show prices were the same but that they were set intentionally. The complainants needed phone company records to show intentionality, but the phone companies refused. Thus the case could not proceed to trial and discovery. Twombly held that a pleading had to make “plausible” allegations which required a detailed complaint describing the crime. In 2009 the Court applied the same logic to the FBI which refused to provide records to the complainant needed to prove that he had been assaulted and tortured while imprisoned. The Court dismissed the case. In a case of a police killing, the judge can require the complaint gives details about how the person died. The people filing the complaint may not know but the police do. However, the police usually refuse to hand over information to the people filing complaints. Thus complainants can’t get to discovery to get it. This is what the Court intended! The majority argument the Court used to justify the requirement was to prevent defendants from having to go through the expense of discovery when faced with a complaint that can’t completely describe the crime. Or to keep defendants from accepting a settlement just to avoid the expense of discovery.
Another option to confront police abuse is to sue the city or county. While local governments are not covered by qualified immunity, other barriers make winning a case very difficult. In 1978 in Monell v. Department of Social Services the Supreme Court established local governments could be sued for constitutional violations by their officers if they had a “policy or custom” that “caused” the violations. The plaintiffs must show evidence that their constitutional rights have been violated, that this is part of a pattern of such violations, and that these violations are due to department policies and procedures. Just as in suing police, local governments including their police departments are highly unlikely to provide relevant information to the plaintiffs thus the complaint is easily dismissed prior to trial and discovery. Even if the plaintiff gets to discovery the plaintiff must provide evidence that each of the prior instances making up the pattern was unconstitutional and was the result of city or department policy or practice. All of which is extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming.
Schwartz covers many other issues such as the wide discretion of judges, the problems of jury selection and how biases affect many outcomes. She also discusses the thorny issue of an officer’s perception that his/her life was in danger, even when it turns out that it wasn’t. She offers suggestions for fixing the system such as modifications to or elimination of Qualified Immunity and modification to the requirements for a complaint. One idea that struck me as more likely to have an immediate impact was getting individual police to pay a share of any settlement or award. She pointed out that Colorado passed a law that says local governments that indemnify officers must require an officer that acted in bad faith pay 5% up to $25,000 of any settlement or judgement. Similar laws have failed to pass in other states. Cleveland and New York City sometimes make the police officer pay a small amount towards a settlement. Police officers rarely suffer when a judgement goes against them. They typically continue on as before. Whether the Colorado law or something like it, holding the police materially responsible short of a criminal prosecution may be the most practical way to reign in abusive behavior. Schwartz notes that in her own cases in New York that she found the same officers were responsible time and again. It was a small group of officers that represented the bulk of the problem. Having to pay out of their own pocket could have a big impact.
I found this book eye opening. It made me realize how difficult this problem will be to fix. I am afraid we will see many more headlines like those of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Schwartz’s descriptions of the cases highlighting the legal principles give these issues a human perspective. Despite the legal intricacies, this is a very readable book. Highly recommended.
Most families and victims of civil rights violations, including violent ones resulting in significant injury or death, don’t have the resources to bring a case. Simply reporting it to police internal affairs departments usually goes nowhere. Local and state laws, courts, judges, and juries favor police over plaintiffs. Civil Rights cases taken to federal courts have more of a chance but even people with a well-documented case typically can’t find a lawyer. Few lawyers are willing to take such cases as they are very difficult to win and rarely pay enough to support the lawyer’s practice. Even successful cases usually end in settlements that fall far short of covering the cost of the lawyer’s time. And few lawyers have the experience needed to navigate the significant legal obstacles in these complex cases. When they do take a case, they want one with strong evidence, serious physical injury or death, and a victim who will present exceptionally well to a jury. This leaves out the vast majority of victims.
The biggest barrier in a federal case suing police for damages is Qualified Immunity. This legal standard established by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution holds that police cannot be held responsible for damages even if they violated the Constitution. They must have violated “clearly established law” which has a very narrow definition. The Court holds this to mean a case with identical circumstances has already been found by a court to be a violation of law. If the case being brought differs in any respect from a prior successful case, it will be dismissed. And that holds even if the judge agrees that the victims civil rights were violated. Even if a victim can find a lawyer and get the case to trial, the case is likely to be dismissed because of Qualified Immunity.
Qualified Immunity also is not subject to the final judgement rule which holds that appeals can only be filed after the case has been decided. A ruling during the trial that goes against the police, for example regarding discovery, can be appealed immediately stopping the trial. This can be repeated for each adverse ruling delaying the trial sometimes for years and driving up the legal expense significantly. This is another reason lawyers don’t want to take these cases. But this is in line with the Court’s stated purpose of Qualified Immunity which is to protect police from having to go through discovery and trial.
When a case is successful the police officers themselves rarely pay any part of the settlement or damages. The money is taken from the department’s or jurisdiction’s budget. The taxpayers pay and the offending police continue as before. Except for high profile cases, they are typically not disciplined. If a settlement is reached, the police officers are not involved and frequently not aware of the outcome. Schwartz provides example after example. In her own experience in New York City she found police officers were unaware of how many times they had been sued or the resolution of ones they were aware of. The legal department handled everything. Thus, suing the police has little impact on police behavior.
Federal civil rights cases against police began in 1961 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Monroe v. Pape. Chicago police without a warrant broke into the Monroes’ home, waking James Monroe, his wife and six children. The police held James and his wife at gunpoint standing naked in front of their children while they ransacked the house. They assaulted and terrorized the Monroe family including the children. James Monroe had no involvement in the murder being investigated and was released after a ten-hour detention. The real murderer later confessed. The Monroes’ filed suit in federal court under a law passed after the Civil War. It made it to the Supreme Court which decided in the Monroes’ favor under what is now called Section 1983. The ruling still stands, but subsequent conservative Courts have severely limited it with restrictive interpretations such as Qualified Immunity. The court’s reasoning revolves around baseless arguments that they need to protect the police from frivolous law suits so they can do their job.
A Court decision in 2007, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly made bringing a Federal civil rights suit much more difficult. In this case about price fixing by phone companies the Court decided the complainants had to not only show prices were the same but that they were set intentionally. The complainants needed phone company records to show intentionality, but the phone companies refused. Thus the case could not proceed to trial and discovery. Twombly held that a pleading had to make “plausible” allegations which required a detailed complaint describing the crime. In 2009 the Court applied the same logic to the FBI which refused to provide records to the complainant needed to prove that he had been assaulted and tortured while imprisoned. The Court dismissed the case. In a case of a police killing, the judge can require the complaint gives details about how the person died. The people filing the complaint may not know but the police do. However, the police usually refuse to hand over information to the people filing complaints. Thus complainants can’t get to discovery to get it. This is what the Court intended! The majority argument the Court used to justify the requirement was to prevent defendants from having to go through the expense of discovery when faced with a complaint that can’t completely describe the crime. Or to keep defendants from accepting a settlement just to avoid the expense of discovery.
Another option to confront police abuse is to sue the city or county. While local governments are not covered by qualified immunity, other barriers make winning a case very difficult. In 1978 in Monell v. Department of Social Services the Supreme Court established local governments could be sued for constitutional violations by their officers if they had a “policy or custom” that “caused” the violations. The plaintiffs must show evidence that their constitutional rights have been violated, that this is part of a pattern of such violations, and that these violations are due to department policies and procedures. Just as in suing police, local governments including their police departments are highly unlikely to provide relevant information to the plaintiffs thus the complaint is easily dismissed prior to trial and discovery. Even if the plaintiff gets to discovery the plaintiff must provide evidence that each of the prior instances making up the pattern was unconstitutional and was the result of city or department policy or practice. All of which is extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming.
Schwartz covers many other issues such as the wide discretion of judges, the problems of jury selection and how biases affect many outcomes. She also discusses the thorny issue of an officer’s perception that his/her life was in danger, even when it turns out that it wasn’t. She offers suggestions for fixing the system such as modifications to or elimination of Qualified Immunity and modification to the requirements for a complaint. One idea that struck me as more likely to have an immediate impact was getting individual police to pay a share of any settlement or award. She pointed out that Colorado passed a law that says local governments that indemnify officers must require an officer that acted in bad faith pay 5% up to $25,000 of any settlement or judgement. Similar laws have failed to pass in other states. Cleveland and New York City sometimes make the police officer pay a small amount towards a settlement. Police officers rarely suffer when a judgement goes against them. They typically continue on as before. Whether the Colorado law or something like it, holding the police materially responsible short of a criminal prosecution may be the most practical way to reign in abusive behavior. Schwartz notes that in her own cases in New York that she found the same officers were responsible time and again. It was a small group of officers that represented the bulk of the problem. Having to pay out of their own pocket could have a big impact.
I found this book eye opening. It made me realize how difficult this problem will be to fix. I am afraid we will see many more headlines like those of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Schwartz’s descriptions of the cases highlighting the legal principles give these issues a human perspective. Despite the legal intricacies, this is a very readable book. Highly recommended.
July 11, 2023
I've been pushing back my hold on this at the library since release day, but after the millionth notification I decided today was as good a day as any to finally give this a listen. It's been a while since I've read any legal nonfiction, but I have to say that I wasn't let down by this. If anything I could have done with a few hundred more pages. The perfect combination of accessible and informative, honestly no notes.
December 15, 2023
This book was depressing but very interesting, well-researched while remaining readable. It is structured in a smart way: each chapter deals with one aspect of the problem and is illustrated by at least one example that really sheds light on the practical application of the topic. The examples are varied: from black people but also white people and poor people.
The topics covered are: the history of legislation on police; the role of lawyers (who are discouraged to take such cases); complaints (how they are filed and prevented from being filed); the constitution; qualified immunity (the chapter that was the most difficult to grasp because it really is ridiculous); how cities can and can't be sued by people for the harm caused by their employees; the role of judges and juries; court-ordered reforms (that people can request to prevent what happened to them to happen to others and the mechanism in place to prevent those orders from existing); the budgets of local government and officers (who actually pays for lawsuits and who should pay in the author's opinion); learning from lawsuits (the mechanisms that exist to make sure officers and their superiors do not learn from lawsuits and aren't even aware of them); finally solutions to improve the situation.
This book really shows convincingly that the police have become a protected class of people who can really act with impunity and do so repeatedly. The parallels with other "civil servants" would have been interesting: doctors or teachers. As a teacher I'm not allowed to touch students even to save their lives or defend myself. That goes too far the other way but the amount of bodily harm and humiliation policy are allowed to inflict is staggering. The thing about public strip searches really shocked me.
Another thing that was weird to me as a non-American was the idea that you can put a price on everything (rape, death, public strip searches) and that cheapens it to me, even if the amount paid is high. It is supposed to be a deterrent but it is so widely accepted and expected that cities and officers are gonna be sued for misconducts that cities have budgets dedicated to pay those. Who pays for misconducts, the public/tax payers and as a result it doesn't work as a deterrent. The situation really is dire but understanding the problem is the first step to actually implement changes so this book really is a must read.
The topics covered are: the history of legislation on police; the role of lawyers (who are discouraged to take such cases); complaints (how they are filed and prevented from being filed); the constitution; qualified immunity (the chapter that was the most difficult to grasp because it really is ridiculous); how cities can and can't be sued by people for the harm caused by their employees; the role of judges and juries; court-ordered reforms (that people can request to prevent what happened to them to happen to others and the mechanism in place to prevent those orders from existing); the budgets of local government and officers (who actually pays for lawsuits and who should pay in the author's opinion); learning from lawsuits (the mechanisms that exist to make sure officers and their superiors do not learn from lawsuits and aren't even aware of them); finally solutions to improve the situation.
This book really shows convincingly that the police have become a protected class of people who can really act with impunity and do so repeatedly. The parallels with other "civil servants" would have been interesting: doctors or teachers. As a teacher I'm not allowed to touch students even to save their lives or defend myself. That goes too far the other way but the amount of bodily harm and humiliation policy are allowed to inflict is staggering. The thing about public strip searches really shocked me.
Another thing that was weird to me as a non-American was the idea that you can put a price on everything (rape, death, public strip searches) and that cheapens it to me, even if the amount paid is high. It is supposed to be a deterrent but it is so widely accepted and expected that cities and officers are gonna be sued for misconducts that cities have budgets dedicated to pay those. Who pays for misconducts, the public/tax payers and as a result it doesn't work as a deterrent. The situation really is dire but understanding the problem is the first step to actually implement changes so this book really is a must read.
February 21, 2023
I think this is a very important book. If you are like me and find constitutional law interesting, and are simultaneously interested in the history of injustice in the legal and policing system, then this is the book for you.
I knew of many of the cases and events presented in this book but for me what stands out is that the book excellently intertwines a clear narrative with a comprehensive description of legal doctrine. The writing is both scholarly and well crafted.
There is some hope in this book but mostly frustration in showing how far we are from actual equity and justice.
I knew of many of the cases and events presented in this book but for me what stands out is that the book excellently intertwines a clear narrative with a comprehensive description of legal doctrine. The writing is both scholarly and well crafted.
There is some hope in this book but mostly frustration in showing how far we are from actual equity and justice.
May 4, 2023
Goddamn!!!! Can’t wait to bully all my law school friends into reading this. Soooo well researched, great interplay of anecdotes and data, and got deep into case law and doctrine without being inaccessible to non-lawyers. I went into this not expecting to learn lots of new stuff — after 3 years of school and several criminal defense gigs I thought I understood how deeply evil and entrenched the institution of policing is — and yet this book taught me so much! Cops and their enablers are the scum of the earth, I was tearing my hair out in every chapter. I promise it’s great and invigorating tho everyone should read it lmao
did-not-finish
June 26, 2023This book is great for people really interested in the history of constitutional law and how it relates to policing. Schwartz outlines the cases that first restricted the power of the police, many during the progressive Warren court, and the plethora of cases that have since chipped away at those restrictions until cops have near free rein to do as they please without legal consequence.
It turns out I need to blast through each chapter in one go to keep the line of cases straight, which doesn't work when my reading time is cobbled together from stolen moments on buses and train platforms. I respectfully DNF at page 74.
It turns out I need to blast through each chapter in one go to keep the line of cases straight, which doesn't work when my reading time is cobbled together from stolen moments on buses and train platforms. I respectfully DNF at page 74.
January 29, 2024
I really appreciate that this was written by UCLA Law professor and practitioner with experience bringing civil rights cases. Very comprehensive explanation of all the barriers to bringing civil rights claims against law enforcement and local municipalities.
March 11, 2023
A thorough examination of how the police became untouchable. The main reason is qualified immunity has evolved and turned into a guard for police to almost never be charged with a crime. The story is told through individual experiences with different ways police avoid being held accountable.
A few quotes from the book
> Even people who can show their constitutional rights were violated may have their cases dismissed because they cannot find prior court decisions with nearly identical facts; without such cases they cannot defeat qualified immunity, even if the officers clearly abused their authority.
> Defenders of qualified immunity have not been able to summon a reason why officers who violate the Constitution should be protected from liability simply because a court has not previously ruled nearly identical conduct to be unconstitutional. Instead, the strongest defenses of qualified immunity have been various predictions that the world would be worse off without it. But claims about the need for qualified immunity are unsupported by the facts on the ground.
> Officers do not need qualified immunity to protect them from bankruptcy when they are sued; local governments almost always pick up the tab.
> Because, as the Supreme Court has said, qualified immunity is meant to protect officers from the burdens of discovery and trial, an officer who is denied qualified immunity can immediately appeal that decision. What this means in practice is that officers can call time-out in the middle of a case, adding months or years to the case and dramatically increasing the costs of litigation.
> In Jessop v. City of Fresno, police officers stole more than $225,000 in cash and rare coins when executing a warrant. Prior cases had held that it was unconstitutional for officers to steal, but those cases were factually distinct-involving the theft of different types of property under different circumstances. According to the appeals court, the officers "ought to have recognized" that it was wrong to steal the coins and cash, but "they did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment" because prior court decisions "did not put the constitutional question beyond debate.
> In fact, the very same court that decided Norris's case in 2021 had ruled five years earlier that it was unconstitutional for an officer who executed a warrant on the wrong house to detain its residents at gunpoint-almost exactly what had happened to Onree Norris. But that prior court decision was not enough to defeat qualified immunity in Norris's case because it was "unpublished"-meaning that it was available online but not in the books of decisions that are issued each year-and so was not technically binding on the court. The court declined to publish its decision in Norris's case as well; so if, in the future, officers hold the wrong person at gunpoint after executing a search warrant at the wrong house, the law still won't be "clearly established" and those officers can receive qualified immunity too
A few quotes from the book
> Even people who can show their constitutional rights were violated may have their cases dismissed because they cannot find prior court decisions with nearly identical facts; without such cases they cannot defeat qualified immunity, even if the officers clearly abused their authority.
> Defenders of qualified immunity have not been able to summon a reason why officers who violate the Constitution should be protected from liability simply because a court has not previously ruled nearly identical conduct to be unconstitutional. Instead, the strongest defenses of qualified immunity have been various predictions that the world would be worse off without it. But claims about the need for qualified immunity are unsupported by the facts on the ground.
> Officers do not need qualified immunity to protect them from bankruptcy when they are sued; local governments almost always pick up the tab.
> Because, as the Supreme Court has said, qualified immunity is meant to protect officers from the burdens of discovery and trial, an officer who is denied qualified immunity can immediately appeal that decision. What this means in practice is that officers can call time-out in the middle of a case, adding months or years to the case and dramatically increasing the costs of litigation.
> In Jessop v. City of Fresno, police officers stole more than $225,000 in cash and rare coins when executing a warrant. Prior cases had held that it was unconstitutional for officers to steal, but those cases were factually distinct-involving the theft of different types of property under different circumstances. According to the appeals court, the officers "ought to have recognized" that it was wrong to steal the coins and cash, but "they did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment" because prior court decisions "did not put the constitutional question beyond debate.
> In fact, the very same court that decided Norris's case in 2021 had ruled five years earlier that it was unconstitutional for an officer who executed a warrant on the wrong house to detain its residents at gunpoint-almost exactly what had happened to Onree Norris. But that prior court decision was not enough to defeat qualified immunity in Norris's case because it was "unpublished"-meaning that it was available online but not in the books of decisions that are issued each year-and so was not technically binding on the court. The court declined to publish its decision in Norris's case as well; so if, in the future, officers hold the wrong person at gunpoint after executing a search warrant at the wrong house, the law still won't be "clearly established" and those officers can receive qualified immunity too
April 9, 2023
Strongly focused on section 1983 issues - violation of citizens’ civil rights by the police - this is a very clear account of the legal and policing issues and environments that help maintain the system of police abuse. The end notes contain very useful references to definitions and jargon commonly used in the discussion of section 1983 abuses, and historical efforts to remedy them at both the state and federal levels. Relevant cases are described and discussed. In addition to the text itself, it’s worth buying this book for the included reference materials.
May 13, 2023
Very methodical and accessible approach to a fairly grim topic. Definitely worth reading.
March 4, 2023
I would give this 6 stars if I could. Must now go apply to law school to become a civil rights attorney.
November 24, 2025
CW: police violence
This is a REALLY good book and if you ever went to a BLM protest you should feel obligated to read this. It’s incredibly thorough. My only complaint is that it didn’t provide enough counter-claims and rebuttals. It is obviously proving a point but it still felt one-sided. That being said I still think it is a must-read for Americans. 4.4 stars
This is a REALLY good book and if you ever went to a BLM protest you should feel obligated to read this. It’s incredibly thorough. My only complaint is that it didn’t provide enough counter-claims and rebuttals. It is obviously proving a point but it still felt one-sided. That being said I still think it is a must-read for Americans. 4.4 stars
May 24, 2024
A devastating and absolutely necessary read. Devastatingly necessary, even.
July 30, 2023
Eye-opening, insightful details that illuminate the complexities preventing effective police oversight and the fears that often impact how our legal system, city governments and law enforcement continue down a path that can reward bad behavior and prevent victims from being heard and receiving justice.
July 10, 2025
A great book. I’d recommend it to any American. I think very few of us are aware of how intensely our legal system prioritizes police over citizens. The book is direct, clear, has lots of examples, lots of legal explanation of the court cases that got us to the point, and suggestions for reform. Like I said, I’d recommend it to anyone I know.
May 1, 2023
well researched and extremely informative. will likely read again and would recommend to anyone and everyone. facts > fear
August 27, 2024
Anger around the 2020 murder of George Floyd seemed to finally generate demands for changes in American policing, but over the past three years, not much really changed. Stories of police abuse keep coming. Why is this? In Shielded – How the Police Became Untouchable, UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz explains the multitude of barriers that have prevented needed police reform from happening.
Schwartz explains how the US justice system offers three paths towards justice, none of which are easy. Option one involves criminal prosecution of officers, which is exceedingly rare. Police are convicted in less than one percent of fatal shootings. Option two involves police internal affairs departments investigating officer misconduct, but again, allegations are rarely sustained. Option three is removing the many “shields” that protect police from lawsuits. Schwartz provides extensive data showing claims about the need for legal protections for police are exaggerated and often simply false. Schwartz states “I wrote Shielded to set the record straight.”
Schwartz provides a history of policing in America, and explains how current policing grew out of slave patrols. Throughout our history, “racist policing has been a constant.” People of color “have been disproportionate targets of police violence and abuse.” The “war on drugs” and “tough on crime” policies discriminated against communities of color. “There may be bad apples, but they often come from rotten trees,” and American courts have prevented these rotten trees from being uprooted.
Schwartz uses stories of outrageous police abuses of innocent citizens to provide clear examples of just how unjust our legal system remains. Examples include multiple incidents of people being shot with their hands in the air, no knock entry into private homes, public strip searches without reasonable cause, and police severely beating, tasing and arresting citizens without cause. Schwartz tells the story of one officer killing three men (all with their hands up when shot) over a five-month period, and for this, getting a promotion. For these examples and many more, Schwartz details how the legal system shielded police from any punishment, and prevented any meaningful changes in how policing is conducted in America.
The Supreme Court has erected may law enforcement shields, including limiting the scope of citizen constitutional protections, limiting the ability to sue local governments for the conduct of their officers, limiting the power to get court orders requiring departments to change their behavior, and limiting the ability to recover attorney fees. In combination, these shields basically make the police “untouchable.” Qualified immunity, created “out of thin air” by the Court, is the best-known shield that protects officers from being sued for monetary damages, even if they have violated the Constitution. Even if violent police actions went “far beyond the pale” and violated the victims’ constitutional rights, excessive force claims are dismissed because of qualified immunity.
It is an enormous challenge finding a civil rights attorney willing to take a police abuse case. Even if they win, often lawyers don’t get fully paid. Typically, lawyers only take these cases out of principle. “And principles don’t pay the bills.” This has led to “less than 1 percent of people who believe that their rights have been violated by the police ever filing a lawsuit.” Schwartz also explains how the discovery process is severely restricted to protect police, and how judges often allowed police to refuse to release important incriminating details, such as body camera footage. Evidence allowed by judges tends to favor police and disfavor plaintiffs.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Yet, police can stop and frisk citizens at almost any time, using trivial excuses, such as loitering. Similar weak laws allow stopping cars for no legitimate reason. This leeway has allowed millions of Americans to be unjustly stopped each year.
Schwartz writes that judges have tremendous discretion, and their views and decisions can vary widely, often leading to different rulings from the same facts. Federal juries are constituted in a way “that people inclined to see the world from the perspective of plaintiffs in civil rights cases are excluded from jury pools at several points in the process.” Careful efforts are put into jury selection to “exclude people of color, poor people, people with criminal records, and people who have had negative experiences with the police – people who might find it easier to see the world from the perspective of plaintiffs.” As a result, plaintiffs win only 1% of cases filed.
State and local laws and policies protect officers so that they rarely have to personally pay anything, even for repeated egregious violations. Schwartz writes that “the threat of officers’ personal financial liability is pure myth.” In an extensive study conducted by Schwartz, she found that in larger cities “officers were made to contribute just 0.02 percent” of the $735 million in judgements against them.
At times, plaintiffs seek to use a lawsuit to force policy changes within a police department, so that similar abuses do not occur in the future. Unfortunately, changes rarely happen. Ironically, officers often don’t “know even the most basic information about prior lawsuits brought against them,” and lawsuit findings rarely make it into officers’ personnel files, and play no role in performance evaluations. For this, the same officers tend to show up again and again in lawsuits. One NYC officer has been sued “more than forty times.”
Schwartz closes with suggested changes to the system, including ending qualified immunity for police officers, and holding cities legally responsible for constitutional violations of their officers. To ensure people are compensated when their rights are violated, “most of the money must come from local government budgets or insurance and not from the bank accounts of individual officers.” Local governments need to “pressure police department officials to learn from the lawsuits filed against them and their officers.” We need more civil rights attorneys, more balanced representation on juries, the end of police stops for minor violations, and increases in the use of unarmed officials responding to people having a mental health crisis. Congress could step in and pass new laws overriding Supreme Court shields. A 2020 bill enacted in Colorado is the new “gold standard,” taking steps down these paths. Other states need to follow suit. Schwartz’s writes that “overblown fears about bankrupt officers and frivolous lawsuits filling the courts must no longer distract us” from making long overdue changes to policing in America. I’m not holding my breath.
Schwartz explains how the US justice system offers three paths towards justice, none of which are easy. Option one involves criminal prosecution of officers, which is exceedingly rare. Police are convicted in less than one percent of fatal shootings. Option two involves police internal affairs departments investigating officer misconduct, but again, allegations are rarely sustained. Option three is removing the many “shields” that protect police from lawsuits. Schwartz provides extensive data showing claims about the need for legal protections for police are exaggerated and often simply false. Schwartz states “I wrote Shielded to set the record straight.”
Schwartz provides a history of policing in America, and explains how current policing grew out of slave patrols. Throughout our history, “racist policing has been a constant.” People of color “have been disproportionate targets of police violence and abuse.” The “war on drugs” and “tough on crime” policies discriminated against communities of color. “There may be bad apples, but they often come from rotten trees,” and American courts have prevented these rotten trees from being uprooted.
Schwartz uses stories of outrageous police abuses of innocent citizens to provide clear examples of just how unjust our legal system remains. Examples include multiple incidents of people being shot with their hands in the air, no knock entry into private homes, public strip searches without reasonable cause, and police severely beating, tasing and arresting citizens without cause. Schwartz tells the story of one officer killing three men (all with their hands up when shot) over a five-month period, and for this, getting a promotion. For these examples and many more, Schwartz details how the legal system shielded police from any punishment, and prevented any meaningful changes in how policing is conducted in America.
The Supreme Court has erected may law enforcement shields, including limiting the scope of citizen constitutional protections, limiting the ability to sue local governments for the conduct of their officers, limiting the power to get court orders requiring departments to change their behavior, and limiting the ability to recover attorney fees. In combination, these shields basically make the police “untouchable.” Qualified immunity, created “out of thin air” by the Court, is the best-known shield that protects officers from being sued for monetary damages, even if they have violated the Constitution. Even if violent police actions went “far beyond the pale” and violated the victims’ constitutional rights, excessive force claims are dismissed because of qualified immunity.
It is an enormous challenge finding a civil rights attorney willing to take a police abuse case. Even if they win, often lawyers don’t get fully paid. Typically, lawyers only take these cases out of principle. “And principles don’t pay the bills.” This has led to “less than 1 percent of people who believe that their rights have been violated by the police ever filing a lawsuit.” Schwartz also explains how the discovery process is severely restricted to protect police, and how judges often allowed police to refuse to release important incriminating details, such as body camera footage. Evidence allowed by judges tends to favor police and disfavor plaintiffs.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Yet, police can stop and frisk citizens at almost any time, using trivial excuses, such as loitering. Similar weak laws allow stopping cars for no legitimate reason. This leeway has allowed millions of Americans to be unjustly stopped each year.
Schwartz writes that judges have tremendous discretion, and their views and decisions can vary widely, often leading to different rulings from the same facts. Federal juries are constituted in a way “that people inclined to see the world from the perspective of plaintiffs in civil rights cases are excluded from jury pools at several points in the process.” Careful efforts are put into jury selection to “exclude people of color, poor people, people with criminal records, and people who have had negative experiences with the police – people who might find it easier to see the world from the perspective of plaintiffs.” As a result, plaintiffs win only 1% of cases filed.
State and local laws and policies protect officers so that they rarely have to personally pay anything, even for repeated egregious violations. Schwartz writes that “the threat of officers’ personal financial liability is pure myth.” In an extensive study conducted by Schwartz, she found that in larger cities “officers were made to contribute just 0.02 percent” of the $735 million in judgements against them.
At times, plaintiffs seek to use a lawsuit to force policy changes within a police department, so that similar abuses do not occur in the future. Unfortunately, changes rarely happen. Ironically, officers often don’t “know even the most basic information about prior lawsuits brought against them,” and lawsuit findings rarely make it into officers’ personnel files, and play no role in performance evaluations. For this, the same officers tend to show up again and again in lawsuits. One NYC officer has been sued “more than forty times.”
Schwartz closes with suggested changes to the system, including ending qualified immunity for police officers, and holding cities legally responsible for constitutional violations of their officers. To ensure people are compensated when their rights are violated, “most of the money must come from local government budgets or insurance and not from the bank accounts of individual officers.” Local governments need to “pressure police department officials to learn from the lawsuits filed against them and their officers.” We need more civil rights attorneys, more balanced representation on juries, the end of police stops for minor violations, and increases in the use of unarmed officials responding to people having a mental health crisis. Congress could step in and pass new laws overriding Supreme Court shields. A 2020 bill enacted in Colorado is the new “gold standard,” taking steps down these paths. Other states need to follow suit. Schwartz’s writes that “overblown fears about bankrupt officers and frivolous lawsuits filling the courts must no longer distract us” from making long overdue changes to policing in America. I’m not holding my breath.
July 14, 2024
As someone who stumbled upon this book already interested in learning more about this topic, it was a great read -- well articulated, superbly researched arguments. What's missing for me is the feeling that I could recommend it to a friend who isn't so interested in the topic and know that they wouldn't get lost in the drier, academic explanations and would instead race through the book passionately fired up with indignancy. Perhaps that is a matter of writing style -- I wish she could have presented her compelling logical arguments with language that appealed even more to emotion and passion. Without that, the book seems a bit set up for an audience rife with confirmation bias. Unless you're already interested in this topic, I don't think it's the kind of non-fiction book that would suck in a neutral, on-the-fence reader. And ultimately that's how we can most effectively fight the broken system when we fight with facts -- appeal to emotion enough to change minds.
I wish to couch this hopefully constructive critique with praise and admiration for how Schwartz has managed to explain the confusing, nonsensical reality of the present state of law enforcement accountability.
I wish to couch this hopefully constructive critique with praise and admiration for how Schwartz has managed to explain the confusing, nonsensical reality of the present state of law enforcement accountability.
September 4, 2023
This is an outstanding book for understanding nationwide policing transparency & accountability issues, thanks to the author’s detailed research & expertise. Lots of stories & specific examples are used to illustrate her points.
I appreciate that she read the audiobook well. There were some very sad, shocking, and jubilant stories in the book which I think would have benefitted from a voice actor. Her style was even & matter of fact, even when the text could have been read with more emotion.
I’m tempted to send copies with highlighted sections & tabs to my local officials.
She acknowledges the racist, oppressive origin & history of US policing, raising questions about who police are and what their role is in society. Alternatives to police are mentioned, though they’re not a focus of the book. Reducing interactions with police (particularly for Black & brown men) is a major strategy for improving safety for all which I think could have received more discussion.
I appreciate that she read the audiobook well. There were some very sad, shocking, and jubilant stories in the book which I think would have benefitted from a voice actor. Her style was even & matter of fact, even when the text could have been read with more emotion.
I’m tempted to send copies with highlighted sections & tabs to my local officials.
She acknowledges the racist, oppressive origin & history of US policing, raising questions about who police are and what their role is in society. Alternatives to police are mentioned, though they’re not a focus of the book. Reducing interactions with police (particularly for Black & brown men) is a major strategy for improving safety for all which I think could have received more discussion.
August 21, 2023
This is a legal deep dive into how exactly laws, the courts, and the legal system as a whole have protected police officers and departments from accountability in police misconduct cases. I'm a huge nerd when it comes to case law and other legal minutiae. I know that not everyone is into that stuff but the author makes it understandable and I wish this was required reading because after reading this book and reading about all of the incidents of egregious misconduct on citizens at the hands of the police that the author uses to exemplify the way police are shielded, I don't see how anyone could look at our police and our legal system the same after reading this book. I highly highly recommend. You will feel enraged about the injustices people (especially Black and brown people) face every day, but people need to know the reality so that we can advocate for change.
February 28, 2024
This book was the perfect mix of educational and storytelling with real life anecdotes from folks who experienced brutality at the hands of the police and had to navigate a system stacked against them.
The amount of time and research that clearly went into this book is beyond impressive. This author is clearly an expert on this topic and every law student should read this book.
Even if you are not a law student, the author managed to make this book approachable and digestible for all audiences.
Highly recommend this book. I listened to it as an audio book and the author narrates it, which I love.
The amount of time and research that clearly went into this book is beyond impressive. This author is clearly an expert on this topic and every law student should read this book.
Even if you are not a law student, the author managed to make this book approachable and digestible for all audiences.
Highly recommend this book. I listened to it as an audio book and the author narrates it, which I love.
August 29, 2023
An anecdotal examination of case law discussing federal and state judicial leeway given to police in section 1983 cases protected by laws/statues such as reasonable suspicion, qualified immunity, and release from indemnification that lead to the inequitable access to justice for those who have been harmed by unconstitutional policing. I would give this book 4.5 stars based on the depth of research and straightforward analysis. If you want to read a book that will make you angry of the systematic abuse of power, this is it.
June 25, 2024
SUCH an important read.
In law school, they teach us to not use many modifiers, as the facts should speak for themselves. This is an excellent example of that. The facts are so outrageous that it’s hard to not feel motivated to be a part of the solution.
Professor Schwartz also did an amazing job of explaining complicated legal concepts in an easy-to-understand way. Highly recommend.
In law school, they teach us to not use many modifiers, as the facts should speak for themselves. This is an excellent example of that. The facts are so outrageous that it’s hard to not feel motivated to be a part of the solution.
Professor Schwartz also did an amazing job of explaining complicated legal concepts in an easy-to-understand way. Highly recommend.
June 9, 2023
A methodical and well researched analysis of the legal and policy choices that make it hard for anyone to recover when police violate an individual's Constitutional rights. The system is broken, but in more ways than you might think.
February 17, 2023
this is where our tax money goes. infuriating.
March 13, 2023
Infuriating
May 26, 2023
Deep and informative look at the policies and institutions that shield police from accountability in cases where they infringe upon citizens' constitutional rights. Very well researched and argued.
April 22, 2024
I wish I was able to read more of it in class, but i absolutely enjoyed what i did read. It was easy, fun, and interesting.
Read
April 18, 2025madness. A little technical for me (this was recommended by a law professor) but wowza. Crazy to see how deep protections run in the legal system at every single level.
July 31, 2025
Absolutely harrowing
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews