I refused to lie under oath for the state of Arizona, and the courts aren’t on my side – USA TODAY

I can't recover my losses after I was punished by the state of Arizona for refusing to lie under oath. Why? The doctrine of qualified immunity.

Greg Ohlson| Opinion contributor

Qualified immunity: How it protects police from civil lawsuits

The doctrine of qualified immunity has been used to protect police from civil lawsuits and trials. Here's why it was put in place.

Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

When a witness testifies in court, they take an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Laws also prevent a witness from being persuaded to give inaccurate testimonyor commit perjury. Arizona, for example, makes it a felony to attempt to influence the testimony of a witness.

As I found out, however,ifyou work for the government, your superiors can't be held financially responsible forordering you to change your testimonyand retaliating against you when you refuse.

I worked as a forensic scientist for nearly 40yearsin a variety of agencies and medical laboratories, including theArizona Department of Public Safety, Scientific Analysis Bureau, which I ended up suing.

I regularly testified in court about the results of defendants' blood-alcohol samples.

A USA TODAY Opinion series: Faces, victims, issues and debates surrounding qualified immunity

At the Arizona Department of Public Safety, samples from multiple defendants were analyzed in batches. Thedepartmentpreferredto give criminal defense attorneys only their defendant'ssample.I told my supervisorsthat themost fair and objective methodwas to provide defense counsel with the entire batch of samples, so they could better review and determine theresults.I considered that abest practiceand within my professional discretion.

In 2016,I testified in two DUI cases that the disclosure being provided to defense attorneys was incomplete. I was asked whether there was any scientific reason not to disclose the information. I said no. I was asked whether the undisclosed data could demonstrate that there was a problem in the blood run. I said yes, based on my professional opinion.

Then all hell broke loose.

I was informed by my superiors that I was required to change my testimony in court.

I said I would not change my testimony.I was then suspended locked out of my computer and had my key card taken away. After months of beingisolated from my work and my team, it was determined that I had been insubordinateand I was fined. I feltI was being forced to retire.

ForArizona DPS, the concern was never to make sure the state didnt convict innocent people.

My son was killed by a park ranger.But I may never see justice.

I brought suit in federal court for the violation of my First Amendment right to free speech. Everyone I talked to, including many lawyers, said, They cant do that. The government cant order you to change your testimony, then punish you if you still tell the truth.

Unbelievably, they were wrong.

The U.S.District Court for the District of Arizona agreedthere wasa violation of my free speech rightsbut granted the defendantsqualified immunity, which means they won't have to pay monetary damages.

The court ruled that the law was not "clearly established"on whether government employees had a First Amendment right to be free from discipline for in-court testimony offered as part of their job.

Qualified immunity: 8 myths about why police need it to protect the public

I appealed the court's decision. In August, a panel of three judges onthe 9th Circuit Court of Appealsheld that Icouldn't recover my financial lossesbecause the court had not previously carved out an exception to qualified immunity that protects government employees from discipline by their employer for telling the truth in court. In short,my First Amendment rights weren't "clearly established" by the district court.

How isthat possible?

According to qualified immunity,even if the government'sconduct was illegal,because there is no case saying government supervisors cantpunish an employee for truthful testimony in court, my supervisorsweren't on notice that this kind ofconductcould create civilliability for them.

It doesn't make sense.

Im a scientist, not a lawyer, but I cant understand why any supervisor would need a court to tell them that you cant punish someone for truthful testimony.I fear for government employees. That they can be punished for telling the truth, and end up having to leave their job because ofit,doesnt feel like justice.

Qualified immunity robbed me of my shot at justice. It must be abolished.

Greg Ohlson retired from the Arizona Department of Public Safety in 2017.

This columnis part of a series by the USA TODAY Opinion team examining the issue of qualified immunity. The project is made possible in part by a grant fromStand Together. Stand Together does not provide editorial input.

Link:
I refused to lie under oath for the state of Arizona, and the courts aren't on my side - USA TODAY