Your Supreme Court came with two rulings. One is qualified immunity, where police officers are not directly responsible in civil claims but the city foots the bill/tab and even worst, some jurisdictions are now legally limiting the monetary amounts that can be claimed. There is also another ruling that says the police do not have a duty to serve and protect the public. It may not be as bad as the Dred Scott ruling which the modern self-righteous generations might thumb their nose at the past, but if you have these crazy legal precedents floating around that protect the police and indirectly encourage police misconduct, whether it is dereliction of duty, or brutality, then you need an amendment.
(ie Amendment 1: Police have a duty to serve and protect.
Amendment 2: Police are civilly responsible for their actions and people can sue them directly for any misconduct claim ).
Now, I'll grant in this political climate it's not likely you'll get that amendment, and the stakes are obviously much lower when talking about law enforcement compared to slavery so I don't think that would lead to a second civil war. An argument for more amendments for the modern era that includes massive police reform, raparations for slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration, is at least sound.
This whole idea of taking away qualified immunity is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long long time. You are not the first to put forth this idea and I'm not calling you dumb, but the idea has been floating around in liberal circles for a while. It's patently foolish. Here's the facts on the issue.
Police have qualified immunity for actions that fall within the confines of the law and the constitution.
Police do NOT have qualified immunity for actions that fall outside the perimeters of the law and the constitution.
You can take an officer to court and if you can show that they acted outside of these parameters they can be held personally, civilly liable for their actions.
You don't need a constitutional amendment.
Here's the consequences of removing qualified immunity.
1. Massive amounts of police leaving the profession.
2. Cities, towns and counties without enough police to provide services for the citizens. (We are seeing this now and they still have qualified immunity)
3. A large rise in crime due to the lack of police. Victimization of the citizenry will increase.
4. In order to stay a police officer, officer would have to purchase liability insurance similar to malpractice insurance. The cost would be prohibitive so the cities and towns would have to cover the costs. Probably at a time of anywhere from 2-5 grand an officer per month to start.
5. Lawsuits would go up due to the ease of getting money from the insurance companies even when the officer did not violate the law or the constitution. The city would have to pay more out for that officer even though he was totally innocent.
6. A couple of suits would cause an officer to be let go due to the cost of his insurance even if he never violated the constitution or the law. An innocent man or woman would lose their career.
7. The governments would raise taxes on the citizens to cover these costs including fines for tickets and crimes.
That's the reality of the situation. Completely foolish.