NYC has officially done away with Qualified Immunity for their PD

March 26, 2021, 08:44 AM

46and2

This will be interesting, a push to require individual officers to carry Liability Insurance and be open to Civil Suits.

CNN source (sorry)

quote:
(CNN)The New York City Council passed a series of reforms for the New York Police Department on Thursday, including ending qualified immunity for officers, which protected them against civil lawsuits.

March 26, 2021, 08:50 AM

cslinger

Meh policing and societal order are overrated anyway.

March 26, 2021, 08:51 AM

Hildur

Great! Now that that's settled when will politicians be unprotected from civil lawsuits?

March 26, 2021, 08:51 AM

cooger

I'm no legal scholar but how can a city council override a judicial precedent established by the Supreme Court?

March 26, 2021, 08:55 AM

walkinghorse

Wonder if they will pass the same for the city managers, councilmen, mayor, and assorted politicians?

March 26, 2021, 08:56 AM

Ironbutt

quote:
Originally posted by cslinger:
Meh policing and societal order are overrated anyway.

I wonder if any members of the NYC council have invested recently in insurance companies that cover that sort of liability insurance.

------------------------------------------------

"It's hard to imagine a more stupid or dangerous way of making decisions, than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
Thomas Sowell

March 26, 2021, 08:59 AM

46and2

quote:
Originally posted by cooger:
I'm no legal scholar but how can a city council override a judicial precedent established by the Supreme Court?

I'm no Compstitutional Skolar, either, but I don't think Qualified Immunity is borne from Warren v. District_of_Columbia (where No Duty To Protect comes from).

March 26, 2021, 09:02 AM

Rick Lee

quote:
Originally posted by cooger:
I'm no legal scholar but how can a city council override a judicial precedent established by the Supreme Court?

Who's gonna stop them? What consequence has there ever been for ignoring a SCOTUS decision (other than Brown vs. Board)?

March 26, 2021, 09:04 AM

46and2

Right, now end it for Politicians as well.

March 26, 2021, 09:06 AM

gearhounds

quote:
ending qualified immunity for officers, which protected them against civil lawsuits.

Most LEO's already carry liability insurance; dropping QI will open up the floodgates for completely frivolous lawsuits for no illegal or excessive actions whatsoever with no expectation for agencies to protect officers simply doing their jobs. Look for turds and their lawyers to begin salivating for payoffs and a slew of retirements.

March 26, 2021, 09:10 AM

cooger

quote:
Originally posted by Rick Lee:
quote:
Originally posted by cooger:
I'm no legal scholar but how can a city council override a judicial precedent established by the Supreme Court?

Who's gonna stop them? What consequence has there ever been for ignoring a SCOTUS decision (other than Brown vs. Board)?

My point is, the city council or city court shouldn't have any say in a lawsuit against an officer. New York probably works differently than KY but here a lawsuit either goes to the state or federal level for these situations. I don't see where the city council stopping qualified immunity will have any impact on lawsuits against officers. In my simple mind the court would still go by the established precendent and consider qualified immunity and not care of the city "banned" it.

Again, I may be way off base here since I know very little about how New York courts operate.

March 26, 2021, 09:18 AM

jhe888

quote:
Originally posted by cooger:
I'm no legal scholar but how can a city council override a judicial precedent established by the Supreme Court?

Not to mention federal law or state law.

I didn't read the article, but the only laws the NYC council can repeal are its own, so I assume they abrogated some local rule. If you sue a cop under 1983, for example, all those immunities are still intact.

March 26, 2021, 09:27 AM

ChuckWall

It would seem that the less qualified immunity the police have will mean more of No Duty To Protect. Another problem, like Chicago, would be getting qualified people to take the job. Why would you want to expose yourself, your family and your future to this kind of peril?

March 26, 2021, 09:47 AM

YooperSigs

A bright young man I know just completed a 4 year degree in law enforcement and has done the local academy.
He told me the other day he is going to Minnesota to build wind turbines.
Pretty clear why he made his decision.

March 26, 2021, 09:47 AM

a1abdj

I see both sides, and agree with aspects of both.

The government is an employer, and they employ people to do things the public requires. Doesn't matter what it is: Policing, fire fighting, road repairs, etc. As an employer, the government should bear the responsibility of reasonable actions by their employees and any resulting liability just like any other employer.

However, there should be a point where a line is drawn, and the taxpayers should not be liable for egregious actions. Let's say a firefighter cuts a hole in a roof to ventilate a fire and for some reason the homeowner sues the fire department. The government who employs that firefighter should vigorously defend that action. But what if the firefighter torches a property to give him the opportunity to fight a fire. Why should the government be responsible? As a tax payer, why is that now my burden?

As always, I suspect the real solution lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

March 26, 2021, 09:48 AM

old rugged cross

Chuck, that is exactly the point. Kind of like teachers. Lock everyone down. Hire the minorities to the positions. No real work for them to do. If something does happen. Don't send them out. Pay them, give good gov. benefits. Get full support from the union, new rank and file, leadership. There is nothing for them to be liable for.
It is the new way. Works for them. It is so obvious. The plan.

March 26, 2021, 09:56 AM

Sig209

quote:
Originally posted by a1abdj:
I see both sides, and agree with aspects of both.

The government is an employer, and they employ people to do things the public requires. Doesn't matter what it is: Policing, fire fighting, road repairs, etc. As an employer, the government should bear the responsibility of reasonable actions by their employees and any resulting liability just like any other employer.

However, there should be a point where a line is drawn, and the taxpayers should not be liable for egregious actions. Let's say a firefighter cuts a hole in a roof to ventilate a fire and for some reason the homeowner sues the fire department. The government who employs that firefighter should vigorously defend that action. But what if the firefighter torches a property to give him the opportunity to fight a fire. Why should the government be responsible? As a tax payer, why is that now my burden?

As always, I suspect the real solution lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

agree

--------------------------

March 26, 2021, 10:25 AM

corsair

Hopefully this gets challenged and overturned in the courts and/or, judges start dismissing them as frivolous and those lawyers pursuing these get court mandated discipline.

March 26, 2021, 11:31 AM

GWbiker

quote:
Originally posted by 46and2:
Right, now end it for Politicians as well.

I would love to see that.

Years ago, Tucson City Council tried to float an anti gun bill that went against state gun rights legislation.

Council got a nastygram from State AG warning them to drop the issue. Tucson pushed the anti gun bill into a court battle and lost and was ordered to pay court cost for both sides, around a million dollars.

Of course, taxpayers had to came up with the monies.

March 26, 2021, 12:02 PM

gearhounds

quote:
Hide Post judges start dismissing them as frivolous and those lawyers pursuing these get court mandated discipline

I'll go one better; officers fight fire with fire with aggressive counter-suits when it's a clear case of false accusations.