NY limits qualified immunity

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,636
1,532
113
NY limits qualified immunity for police officers according to this article. If I was an officer I think that I would be finding a new job. I honestly believe that a lot of the problems could be fixed by better training and better screening the people applying to become officers. Also police departments need to take swift action when it's obvious that officers do something that is obvious wrong rather than trying to justify it. However, I think this change will make officers reluctant to do things because they will be afraid of making a mistake and being sued.

Could an officer now be sued for doing nothing?
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
9,590
7,606
113
NY limits qualified immunity for police officers according to this article. If I was an officer I think that I would be finding a new job. I honestly believe that a lot of the problems could be fixed by better training and better screening the people applying to become officers. Also police departments need to take swift action when it's obvious that officers do something that is obvious wrong rather than trying to justify it. However, I think this change will make officers reluctant to do things because they will be afraid of making a mistake and being sued.

Could an officer now be sued for doing nothing?
anyone can be sued for doing nothing. the question here will be whether the city's insurance (self-funded accounts) will indemnify them from a jgment. police associations typically cover costs of defense for cops. it's the judgment that's an issue. and whether the city can even do this. this thing will get challenged. this should be in coh's wheelhouse. he represented cities

regardless perception is impt and one more thing to detract people from wanting to become a cop. saint louis city currently has 150 cop vacancies they can't fill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1

Noodle

Hall of Famer
Jun 19, 2001
26,062
5,552
113
NY limits qualified immunity for police officers according to this article. If I was an officer I think that I would be finding a new job. I honestly believe that a lot of the problems could be fixed by better training and better screening the people applying to become officers. Also police departments need to take swift action when it's obvious that officers do something that is obvious wrong rather than trying to justify it. However, I think this change will make officers reluctant to do things because they will be afraid of making a mistake and being sued.

Could an officer now be sued for doing nothing?

It's not clear how this local law will work. It only applies in New York City. Can the city really create a civil cause of action and/or eliminate qualified immunity for a civil cause of action against an individual officer? It seems highly unusual for something like this to be done at the local level, leading me to question (a) what this actually means, and (b) whether the city even has the authority to do it.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
9,590
7,606
113
It's not clear how this local law will work. It only applies in New York City. Can the city really create a civil cause of action and/or eliminate qualified immunity for a civil cause of action against an individual officer? It seems highly unusual for something like this to be done at the local level, leading me to question (a) what this actually means, and (b) whether the city even has the authority to do it.
so true. it's not state law. it's a city thing. like an ordinance. i guess. i don't get it either. i didn't think cities could enact ordinances that create private causes of action. I don’t understand it.
 
Last edited:

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,636
1,532
113
Can the city really create a civil cause of action and/or eliminate qualified immunity for a civil cause of action against an individual officer?
I wondered the same thing but thought I was just being stupid since I really don't know much about things like this.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
9,590
7,606
113
NY limits qualified immunity for police officers according to this article. If I was an officer I think that I would be finding a new job. I honestly believe that a lot of the problems could be fixed by better training and better screening the people applying to become officers. Also police departments need to take swift action when it's obvious that officers do something that is obvious wrong rather than trying to justify it. However, I think this change will make officers reluctant to do things because they will be afraid of making a mistake and being sued.

Could an officer now be sued for doing nothing?
regardless of whether the city has the right to do this; i just read where deblasio said the city/dept will cover damages not any individual cop named.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,246
8,222
113
NY limits qualified immunity for police officers according to this article. If I was an officer I think that I would be finding a new job. I honestly believe that a lot of the problems could be fixed by better training and better screening the people applying to become officers. Also police departments need to take swift action when it's obvious that officers do something that is obvious wrong rather than trying to justify it. However, I think this change will make officers reluctant to do things because they will be afraid of making a mistake and being sued.

Could an officer now be sued for doing nothing?
Stupid and ignorant. All QI really means is that a violation of a federal right must be intentional or the result of deliberate indifference that shocks the conscience. In other words, a public employee cannot be responsible for a violation without reasonably knowing that he or she is doing that. By taking QI away, the authorities are pushing constitutional issues into the negligence area. Two different things.

A couple of things to know about QI. First, QI wasnt a factor in the George Floyd case, nor in Michel Brown or any of the other recent events. It was a red herring because politicians must find some way to make the voters think they are important. Second, QI does not apply to entities, only to individuals.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,246
8,222
113
so true. it's not state law. it's a city thing. like an ordinance. i guess. i don't get it either. i didn't think cities could enact ordinances that create private causes of action. I don’t understand it.
Colorado passed a law saying cops must pay damages if they are individually liable up to a certain amount. I suppose insurance is available. I've asked around and as far as I know nobody has made an issue of that. Almost all cases are “official capacity” cases which eliminates QI anyway. The QI discussion really is a product of profound ignorance.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
9,590
7,606
113
Stupid and ignorant. All QI really means is that a violation of a federal right must be intional or the result of deliberate indifference That shocks the conscience. In other words, a public employee cannot be responsible for a violation without reasonably knowing that he or she is doing that. By taking QI away, the authorities are pushing constitutional issues into the negligence area. Two different things.

A couple of things to know about QI. First, QI wasnt a factor in the George Floyd case, nor in Michel Brown or any of the other recent events. It was a red herring because politicians must find some way to make the voters think they are important. Second, QI does not apply to entities, only to individuals.
But by eliminating individual immunity from civil suits it’s creating a private cause of action. How can a city do that? This has nothing to do with the fed level. It’s creating a local cause of action. I think ....
 
Last edited:

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
9,590
7,606
113
Colorado passed a law saying cops must pay damages if they are individually liable up to a certain amount. I suppose insurance is available. I've asked around and as far as I know nobody has made an issue of that. Almost all cases are “official capacity” cases which eliminates QI anyway. The QI discussion really is a product of profound ignorance.
Deblasio said city will indemnify so it’s of no moment there. Just political signaling really unless I’m missing something. Well actually if it’s a new cause of action that travels in state court that’s way better. Plaintiffs hate fed ct - obviously.
 
Last edited:

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,246
8,222
113
But by eliminating individual immunity from civil suits it’s creating a private cause of action. How can a city do that? This has nothing to do with the fed level. It’s creating a local cause of action. I think ....
I don’t think a state or municipality can do that either. I’m not even sure Congress can do that. I’d argue that qualified immunity from unintended constitutional violations is a property right that cannot be taken. Some smart lawyer will litigate that.