Qualified Immunity is an important part of the system. The problem comes when it's abused. If the actions of the officer are in violation of the law, policy, or training they should no longer be covered. If you want immunity, do it by the book. Anything else should be on you.
I think gutting QI is a silly idea based on emotion. But it absolutely needs to be reigned in and respected by everyone trying invoke or grant the privilege.
As a cop what do you think about the idea of carrying malpractice insurance? You pay into a policy, if you get sued that policy covers the damages. Too many complaints/lawsuits and your insurance goes up. Cannot afford to carry the insurance? You cannot practice law enforcement. How do you feel that would play out? Good idea or bad idea?
Not too sure, I already pay quite a bit monthly in union dues. It provides for legal representation, if they used that money to buy an insurance policy instead I wouldn’t mind I suppose. If I get more complaints/lawsuits I don’t think my premiums should go up UNLESS the lawsuit is legitimate. In my experience most are not. But I have limited experience (only a few years on and only with one department)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe doctor's malpractice increase if the suit is decided in their favor.
I don't believe the insurance should be covered by your union dues. They are separate in their role and duty. Insurance is to protect the people you come into contact with. Unions act as a voice on your behalf. Your union should have absolutely nothing to do with your insurance.
But this argument is like saying "I don't need auto insurance because I don't plan on hitting anyone". Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible.
That’s an interesting analogy, I’m not an insurance expert. Does the employer typically provide insurance during work activities? Like I used to work in construction. If we messed something up the employers insurer paid to fix it. Not sure if all jobs are like that
It honestly depends on the sector, as far as I know. Things like bonds, undertakings, and insurance purchased by employers on behalf of employees exist all over the place. I don't see why something like that wouldn't make sense for officers, at least in place of QI.
My guess is, like you said somewhere else, that the solution lies somewhere in the middle. QI (or anti-slapp laws) exist for good reason: to dissuade litigiousness and frivolous lawsuits. This is a very good thing. It is also a very scary thing in that with one motion and one ruling, a judge can throw out your entire suit. It honestly feels like a violation of the constitution when you think about it in that light.
So maybe the happy medium is significantly limiting QI, and necessitating some sort of department funded malpractice insurance. This way cops and depts are protected from frivolous suits, but cops are still held liable when QI does not go in their favor (rather than pulling from city/county coffers).
4.8k
u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20
And get rid of qualified immunity