Qualified immunity serves as an officer's primary defense against which type of claims?

Qualified immunity serves as an officer's primary defense against tort claims, which typically involve civil lawsuits brought by individuals alleging that their rights have been violated as a result of the officer's actions while performing their duties. Tort claims can arise from various incidents, including excessive use of force, false arrest, or malicious prosecution, where individuals seek compensation for perceived wrongs done by law enforcement officers during the exercise of their duties.

The concept of qualified immunity is designed to protect officers from liability when they are acting within the scope of their official duties and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known. This legal doctrine helps to balance the need for accountability in law enforcement with the necessity of allowing officers to perform their duties without the constant fear of personal liability for every action they take in the line of duty.

In contrast, criminal claims involve charges brought by the state against an individual for violations of law, and qualified immunity is not applicable in these scenarios. Administrative claims pertain to internal agency procedures rather than civil lawsuits, and employment claims involve issues between the officer and their employer, such as workplace discrimination. Therefore, qualified immunity specifically focuses on tort claims where individuals seek damages for alleged violations of their rights by law enforcement officers.