According to court rulings regarding the use of force by police officers, which statement is correct?

The correct choice highlights a crucial aspect of legal accountability for police officers. Officers performing discretionary functions are not protected by qualified immunity if their conduct violates a federal statutory right. This means that when an officer makes a decision or takes action that goes against someone’s federally protected rights, they can be held liable under the law. This principle ensures that officers are held accountable for their actions, particularly when they overstep their lawful authority.

Qualified immunity is designed to protect officers in the course of their duties, but it does not serve as a blanket protection in cases of clear violations of established rights. The courts have consistently ruled that if there is a violation of a known statutory right, and that right is clearly established at the time of the incident, then officers can be subject to personal liability. This reflects the legal balance between allowing officers to perform their duties without fear of constant litigation and ensuring that individuals' rights are safeguarded against unlawful conduct.

In contrast, the other statements either overstate the immunity protections afforded to police officers or misrepresent the legal standards in place. For instance, the idea that officers are immune in all cases is not supported by legal precedent, as there are numerous circumstances where violations result in civil liability. The notion of “unrestricted immunity” during