-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
SCOTUS OT 2022 - Qualified Immunity Edition
- Thread starter Knuckle Dragger
- Start date
I know the sudden influx of captains and higher was a huge problem in the ranks for years.
Last edited:
silversquirrel
NES Member
Condolences. Sounds like your dad was quite a guy.
Last edited:
KBCraig
NES Member
That only happens until the insurance companies say, "Officers Snuffy and Duffy are no longer insurable, and will not be protected under your policy."
At that point, Snuffy and Duffy are under the financial risk of unemployment, and never being employable by any other LEA.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
I was thinking the MD/RN model where each practicioner buys their own policy
Removing QI also presents the secondary issue of "who funds the defense?". That gun bunny of Taran's who had about the cleanest shoot imaginable with video evidence of a Tueller drill in reality is being sued because the plaintiff alleged that the suspect behavior was not placing the officer in danger. If QI enabled her to be sued personally, who would pay the legal fees? If her, nobody in their right mind would become a cop if the risk was not insurable or covered by the employer.
Unfortunately, the only real question is "how much will the plaintiff to go away"?
KBCraig
NES Member
If John Q. was the shooter, who pays his legal bills? Including the possible criminal charges, which the officer won't face?
If someone is suicidal, sending people that he knows will kill him is probably not the right choice. This is one of those "send the social worker, not the cops" cases.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
My point is that if funding a defense for bogus suits becomes part of their job, nobody in their right mind would become a cop, especially when even the cleanest shoot comes with the prospect of funding a civil defense.
Yeah, send a social worker to send someone holding a knife who just stabbed someone. Makes plenty of sense to me if you think there are too many social workers in the world.
KBCraig
NES Member
It's a feature, not a bug.
That's not remotely the scenario I posted, and I'm pretty sure you understand that.
Someone who has stabbed someone has committed a crime, and gets the police.
Someone who is acting odd, expressing suicidal thoughts, even actively threatening suicide, get the social worker. Hell, even the EMT will do.
How many times have we seen cases where someone called for an ambulance, but police showed up first, and things escalated from a call for help to the use of deadly force?
Too many. If you have a nail to deal with, pull out the hammer. If you don't, use the other tools first.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
We may be thinking of different cases I was thinking of the one in which the subject was waving a utility knife a/k/a boxcutter around.
I believe this is the event you are referencing...
I think this would still be a police contact due to the Multi-Car accident with unannounced likelihood of injuries, but in this period of change, who knows...
But does it? Are you saying that it’s QI that enables cops to not have to pay for legal fees? I don’t think that is correct. I’m pretty sure the state and/or police unions pay for that stuff even in cases in which cops do not receive QI and even in cases in which cops lose.
In any case, it’s a ridiculous reason to be against the elimination of QI. People are entitled to legal fees when faced with a frivolous lawsuit already. QI is irrelevant to this.
QI is BS to begin with but the current implementation of it is such a massive perversion or even its original point for existing at all.
The only reasonable use of it is when a cop makes a good faith and reasonable mistake, being granted QI after the case is fully adjudicated, with a ruling that is now legal precedent. A one time pass and now all cops are on notice this sort of thing is not okay and they will be then held liable.
How it actually is used is that cops are granted QI after a motion for summary judgment in their favor, where the case is not adjudicated, and no ruling is issued on the matter; leaving no precedent. This happens even when it was not a good faith mistake but also when the cop was acting in bad faith. This happens even when there are similar cases in which the conduct was ruled unconstitutional or illegal so long as the set of facts aren’t literally identical. It’s used as a blanket protection for cops who commit crimes. 18 USC 241 and 242, and 42 USC 1983 are clear. QI was illegal created by the courts and violates these laws.
It must be abolished.
The only reasonable use of it is when a cop makes a good faith and reasonable mistake, being granted QI after the case is fully adjudicated, with a ruling that is now legal precedent. A one time pass and now all cops are on notice this sort of thing is not okay and they will be then held liable.
How it actually is used is that cops are granted QI after a motion for summary judgment in their favor, where the case is not adjudicated, and no ruling is issued on the matter; leaving no precedent. This happens even when it was not a good faith mistake but also when the cop was acting in bad faith. This happens even when there are similar cases in which the conduct was ruled unconstitutional or illegal so long as the set of facts aren’t literally identical. It’s used as a blanket protection for cops who commit crimes. 18 USC 241 and 242, and 42 USC 1983 are clear. QI was illegal created by the courts and violates these laws.
It must be abolished.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
Since the cops cannot be sued due to QI there are generally no legal fees for a suit that attempts to go after the cops personal assets. Allowing suits against cops as individuals will create new legal fees, and the question remains - will the tab for these additional fees be picked up by the employer (city), police union or officer personally? I doubt the later will come to pass, and the union will be reluctant to allow this new expense to be put onto them.
AHM
NES Member
In reality, the police officials, prosecutors, and courts
who let cops skate by misapplying the doctrine,
swear that they're applying it the way you think is appropriate;
swear in three-part harmony.
Since we've seen that the doctrine is incapable of being used without being misused,
get rid of the doctrine.
Let police learn to be the actual legal experts that they always claim they are today
when they have you pulled over and are spouting ragtime as a pretext
to jack you up for behavior that's not against the law.
If that's no way to run a police department,
maybe the Supreme Court needs to simplify the flowchart
for a traffic stop.
Cops can be sued, it’s just that the suits get dismissed. There’s a difference. So saying they can’t be sued because somehow QI prohibits it, isn’t accurate. I think you are conflating what QI is and does.
I’m not sure it does but I fail to see how that matters with regards to QI. The losing party in a frivolous suit already has to pay the prevailing party. It happens all the time. Why would it be any different because cop? Why should it be different as it is now? There’s no valid justification for this. Government especially deserves no special treatment on matters involving civil rights particularly since the Constitution and law directly prohibits government from violating them. QI instead flips that 180 degrees to protect them
Again, I don’t think it substantially changes anything, and in any case it’s no justification for keeping QI.
1. The conduct is adjudicated and determined to be justified. No violations occur. QI is therefore irrelevant.
2. The suit is deemed frivolous. Losing party pays for prevailing parties legal fees. QI is again irrelevant.
3. The conduct is determined to be violation. With QI, nobody is held accountable except the taxpayers. Without it, the government may be held accountable
4.QI protects the government and the the suit is dismissed before any determination on the conduct is made and nobody is held accountable.
In no case does the lack of QI adversely affect the government when they are the prevailing party.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
This is more often done in theory than fact. What appears to the sueee as a frivolous suit is often seen as having merit by the actioning party, and judges understand this. Futhermore, there is often a point where the offered deal is "we part ways with neither side admitting any wrong doing and paying their own fees, or you can continue to run up the legal fees, hope for a judgment, and then try to collect".
It's kind of like state level 93A triple damages laims - sometimes happens, but more often used as a threat and never actually awarded.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
Don't forget he biggest QI of all - if a federal LEO kills when acting on official orders, (s)he is immune to state indictment.
KBCraig
NES Member
I wasn't thinking of a legal case. I was thinking of the situation I stated: that a call for a suicidal person doesn't generally turn fatal until a cop shows up.
Or as I call it, "the Lon M*****F*****G Horiuchi doctrine"!
AHM
NES Member
(Did the Commonwealth pick up that unit at the Mt. Prospect Police Auction?)
Ending QI would be a good thing. No more "I was just following orders" defense. Hold all govt actors accountable for unconstitutional actions.
LEO's will think twice before following unconstitutional directives.
Imagine what that would do for all the MA cities/towns with unwritten "deny all unrestricted permit applications except ....." rules like Boston. LEO's that enforce these illegal rules could be sued directly. That might induce them to disclose who estebalished the unlawful rules.
LEO's will think twice before following unconstitutional directives.
Imagine what that would do for all the MA cities/towns with unwritten "deny all unrestricted permit applications except ....." rules like Boston. LEO's that enforce these illegal rules could be sued directly. That might induce them to disclose who estebalished the unlawful rules.
AHM
NES Member
No contest.
But while beauty is skin deep, ugly goes to the bone,
and I saw a certain commonality...
Q I also so covers Firefighters, EMT's even people who are volunteers for these type positions in small towns. All gov't office holders like selectman, mayors, town counsel. So if you think a firefighter chopped to many holes in your roof in your house fire you can sue, Emt tries to start an Iv but fails, Law suit. This is more than just about cops.
xtry51
NES Member
I've said this in other threads, but what you're insinuating as a potential problem is an issue with tort reform and small claims, not with QI. To maintain a terrible idea simply because there is another terrible idea complicating the problem does not mean doing nothing is the proper course of action.
Immunity for ones actions is an absurd premise that only a spoiled child prone to fits of entitlement would think is a good idea
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,488
- Likes
- 33,486
The real test will be if the police have their usual veto power with the legislature.
Similar threads
