DESPITE THE FACT THAT MOST MISCONDUCT SUITS HAVE BEEN WON BY THE POLICE OFFICERS CHARGED, THE GROWING NUMBER OF SUCH SUITS HAS BROUGHT CANCELLATION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE AND INCREASES IN INSURANCE PREMIUMS. ESCALATING LITIGATION EXPENSES CREATE PRESSURES FOR POLICE AGENCIES TO SETTLE CLAIMS OUT OF COURT, EVEN WHEN CLAIMS LACK MERIT. EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, OFFICERS MAY HESITATE TO EXERCISE THEIR JUDGMENT, FEARING PERSONAL LOSS IN A CIVIL SUIT. FAILURE TO ACT WHEN ACTION IS NEEDED OR TO IMPLEMENT DECISIONS ONCE THEY ARE MADE MEANS THAT OFFICERS ARE NOT FULLY AND FAITHFULLY PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES. THE LAW SHOULD, AND DOES, PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITH PROTECTION WHEN THEY ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT THEIR CONDUCT IS LAWFUL. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S FORMULATION OF THIS PROTECTION IS CALLED QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN SEVERAL CASES INVOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS IS REVIEWED, AND IMPLICATIONS OF THESE AND RELATED CASES FOR OFFICERS ARE POINTED OUT. THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE IN PROCUNIER V. NAVARETTE SHOULD REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN OFFICER BEING SUBJECT TO TRIAL FOR VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THE DECISION IN CAREY V. PIPHUS SHOULD REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF LARGE, SPECULATIVE DAMAGES BEING AWARDED AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN CASES IN WHICH THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY. IN BUTZ V. ECONOMOU, A CASE CONCERNING THE IMMUNITY OF A TOP FEDERAL EXECUTIVE, THE COURT INDICATES THAT OFFICIALS SHOULD NOT BE HARASSED BY FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS AND THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD DISMISS INSUBSTANTIAL CLAIMS. (LKM)