I returned home to find police in my yard. I was taken back, I was really surprised.

They then let me know they were looking for a suspect, my ex at the time.

I let them know that he was there earlier that morning, but I wasn't sure if he was

still in the home at the time.

I gave the police my keys when they asked if they could go in and apprehend him.

They then asked me to leave the premises.

This is what she came back to.

They just completely destroyed my house. I mean, I had a playpen near one of the windows

and it was just full of glass.

Shaniz had expected the police to use her keys to check inside the house.

Instead, they called in a SWAT team, who shot tear gas through the windows.

Her ex, wasn't even there.

But the six-months pregnant Shaniz was left to clean up the tear gas residue and damage

in a now unlivable home.

I was just immediately brought to tears.

It was the first time of me even being on my own in my own house,

and it was all taken away.

So she sued the police for the damages and unreasonable search and seizure,

arguing her consent to go inside the house did not mean she consented to them doing… this.

The federal court agreed, saying, the police “exceeded the scope of the consent”

But they were still entitled to something called “qualified immunity.”

Meaning, the police were off the hook, and Shaniz lost.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits like hers.

It's one of the many police protections protesters of police brutality want to see reformed.

And its future may hinge on the 2020 election.

Qualified immunity is just that — immunity

— granted to government officials, like police officers,

when sued by regular people who feel their constitutional rights were violated by things

like excessive force or unreasonable search.

For an officer to earn qualified immunity, it doesn't actually matter whether or not

someone's rights were violated.

What matters is whether the police officer should have known they were violating that

person's rights.

The idea stems from a 1980s Supreme Court decision, where the Court argued the “fear

of being sued” might prevent the “unflinching discharge of their duties.”

So unless it was “clearly established” that a government official's actions were

wrong, they can't be sued.

The trouble with qualified immunity comes from how specifically the courts have interpreted

the “clearly established” as wrong part.

In 2016, a prison guard pepper sprayed a man in his cell for no reason — something he

was given three months probation for.

When he was sued by the man for the excessive force, he was given qualified immunity.

Court precedent had clearly established other similar actions as wrong, like punching or

tasing for no reason.

But no previous case had specifically condemned pepper spraying.

Therefore, the court says the officer couldn't have known it was wrong.

Shaniz's case played out in a similar way.

Because “don't excessively deploy tear gas or destroy property

when given consent to enter a home”

isn't a specific police policy, and an officer hadn't successfully been

sued for that specific action in the past,

the officers were granted qualified immunity.

Before any of this happened, I had no idea what qualified immunity was.

We turn law-abiding citizens into victims. That's not right.

This strict interpretation of qualified immunity has some of

today's Supreme Court Justices concerned that

“it tells officers that they can shoot first and think later.”

Last year, a Georgia officer was given immunity because

“shooting a 10-year-old while attempting to shoot the non-threatening family dog”

wasn't clearly established as wrong.

Nor was “Don't tase a pregnant woman for not signing a parking ticket.”

Or “Don't sic a canine on a person after they've already surrendered

by sitting on the ground with their hands up.”

Although, “Don't sic a K-9 on a person after they've already surrendered

by lying down” is actually an established precedent from an older case.

Qualified immunity makes it hard to set new precedent — because this officer wasn't

successfully sued,

the next officer to do this will also have qualified immunity. It's a catch-22.

These kinds of cases are why people arguing for police reform put ending qualified immunity

for police officers high on the list.

And, importantly, it's one of few police reforms the federal government can actually

make happen.

There are thousands of different police departments in the US — around 18,000.

And different kinds of governments oversee them, with different levels of authority.

Let's look at the Minneapolis Police Department for example,

which is controlled by the city of Minneapolis.

If the city council wanted to make a change to the police department's budget, or change

one of their rules

— like when they're allowed to use tear gas, for example —

the city has that authority.

Then there's the state of Minnesota, whose government can change laws

— like requiring a public report of misconduct — that would affect all the police departments

in the state, including Minneapolis.

The federal government, of course, has oversight of all the states.

If Congress passes a law, it applies to everyone.

But Congress doesn't have the authority to tell these states how to spend their money.

And most changes to police policy rely directly on a police department's budget.

Congress can do things like influence states to make changes, like only giving out grant money

to states that report misconduct.

But they can't pass a law to make state police buy and wear body cameras or ban them

from carrying certain weapons.

Because these policies depend on money, and police departments are funded primarily by

these local and state governments.

it's really up to them to change the way police, police.

Except when it comes to things that deal with constitutional rights, like qualified immunity.

Because it was established in federal court,

only the federal government has the power to change it.

The Supreme Court could take up a case that involves it and rule to change the precedent.

Something several Justices have shown interest in but so far haven't acted on.

Congress also has the power to reform qualified immunity.

In June, the Democratic-held House of Representatives passed a bill that would limit it for police

officers.

But it's not going to get a vote in the Republican-held Senate.

If a bill like this were to eventually get through Congress, it would need to get

through the White House before it became law.

And President Trump likely wouldn't sign it.

“Whether they like it or not, you need immunity for the police.”

Presidential candidate Joe Biden, has included it as part of his police reform plan, as his

running mate describes.

“It's about reining in qualified immunity.”

It matches their general police reform stances: Trump wants to strengthen police protections,

while Biden wants to see more funding for community-based police and focus on reforming

the criminal justice system.

The results of the 2020 election — both in Congress and the White House — could

in some ways determine the future of qualified immunity.

And ending or limiting the practice would result in more individual police officers

being held accountable for their unconstitutional actions.

But local governments are primarily what fund the police, and control how they police.

So when it comes to police reform in general, you have to start looking at people running

further down the ballot.

Thanks for watching this episode in our 2020 election series.

We did a call out asking you for what you think the candidates to be talking about

and this was one of your top responses.

Joshua asked, “how do they plan to have actual change in the way the country is policed?”

Maria-Anna asked, “what is going to happen with qualified immunity?”

And Matthew said, “I believe both of the candidates need to more heavily address police reform;

it is the most polarizing issue in our country no matter which side of the aisle you are on.”

But remember, if you're a US voter, the president isn't the only person on your ballot.

Your local elections can have a huge impact on daily life — so don't skip those!

We're still working on more episodes,

and we'd still like to know what you think the candidates should be talking about.

Tell us at Vox.com/ElectionVideos.