Submitted by hau5keeping t3_10rqtz8 in nyc
NetQuarterLatte t1_j6ybc93 wrote
Reply to comment by PauI_MuadDib in New York Pays $121 Million for Police Misconduct, the Most in 5 Years by hau5keeping
You're mistakenly conflating the issues with qualified immunity with the issues with this bill.
This bill having problems doesn't mean that qualified immunity doesn't need revision.
None of the resources you're linking are specific to this bill.
Our legislative in NY is notorious for drafting bills in a half-ass feel good manner, only to discover later that the bill had many flaws.
​
>A gov employer will indemnify you if you were within the law or policy.
Under the NY bill (I don't know about the Colorado bill), as drafted, that's not true on two counts:
- The gov is not allowed to indemnify only if the employee is convicted of a crime related to the conduct.
- The bill prohibits "within the law or policy" as a defense. If the law or policy is determined to be unconstitutional after the fact, the employee is still liable.
PauI_MuadDib t1_j6yscwf wrote
I posted those links because they bring up some of the issues around indemnification. But Colorado's law is the closest to what NY SB 182 is proposing. Except one huge difference is that SB 182 includes law enforcement AND "government officials." But here's some links talking about indemnification, and Colorado's law. It was an issues discussed heavily with their bill too.
The first link is the best one imo. It mentions indemnification and how if an officer is found liable by their gov employer to have violated constitutional rights or policy they won't be fully indemnified. The officer will have to pay a certain percentage. Colorado capped it at 5 percent of the settlement/jury award, not to exceed 25k. The employer will pay part of it, but if law or policy was found to be violated the officer will be personally on the hook for a percentage.
That's why I mentioned it. There are restrictions to being fully indemnified, and that's not unique to Colorado. And the gov employer (police departments in this case) also aren't going to appreciate a hit to their budget or insurance going up.
A cop won't personally be paying a million dollars. But if you're going to risk your employer only paying a percentage of the settlements/award that's still going to be a hit to your wallet. Especially for repeat offenders. 1k here, 3k there, maybe even 5k. That's going to add up and most people don't like losing thousands of dollars. So that might incentivize you to intervene if your coworker is fucking up. And the employer might look at you and say you're eating into the budget, you're making us pay out the wazoo for insurance premiums, I'm having a difficult time justifying why you are worth keeping.
This bill definitely has its limits and won't magically solve every single problem we have. Remember, it can also be changed because right now it's only a proposed bill. This bill could be changed for the better (or the worse lol). That's why it's important to call up our senators and tell them what we do & don't want with SB 182.
It's also limited to state court and deprivation of rights under the state constitution. And we have no idea how judges will end up applying it if and when it's put into action.
It's an albeit small, but good step in the right direction.
I have a feeling the police unions know this, and that's why instead of letting the bill proceed and not waste their breath fighting it, they've teamed up with Hochul to torpedo it. If was really a do-nothing bill then what do they care?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments