6 ms·

Cops Raided Wrong Address and Wrecked Elderly Man's Home, Got Qualified Immunity

4 points by 34679 5y ago

LatteLazy 5y ago
Isn't this exactly what qualified immunity is meant to do? You make a good-faith mistake as a public official, you don't face criminal charges. The state suffers civil liability.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Not reading the entire search warrant, in a situation like this especially, seems bad faith.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Does it? It seems they did but they were expecting a different looking house? Remember, stupidity, laziness etc are not bad faith. Bad faith requires intent.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      'For his part, Cody said he checked for a signature, verified it permitted no-knock entry, and confirmed the address, but declined to read it "all the way through."' The officer in charge of the search did not even know what was permitted to be searched for. Declining to read such an important document is bad faith.
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        The court disagrees. Remember bad faith is a very high bar. You need to show he intentionally raided the wrong house. Incompetence and laziness ARE a valid defence here. Did he have something particular against this other house? Did he know the occupants? Did he profit somehow from raiding the wrong house? Because if not, he's just a lazy, stupid person. Lazy and stupid is exactly what qualified immunity protects. This actually works in the "victims" favour as well remember. If we decide the office is legally responsible, that means the state isn't. So the guy who now has 6 figure damages can only officer dumbass, net worth 4 figures or less. Being able to sue the state is a much better deal here.
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        Perhaps for monetary damages, but not for departmental change.
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        Isn't monetary damages exactly how you achieve change? The mayor and voters don't care if some moron gets locked up for this. They do care if the town budget collapses and taxes have to go up to pay for it.
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        Has that been happening with all the payouts? I haven't heard anything like that, and the people who do the violating get to keep on violating. Isn't that what law is meant to be about? Preventing and punishing harm.
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        I think reforms have been push by either big payouts or insurers refusing further coverage. According to this article, Chicago are taking it seriously: https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rethink-policies-as-cities-pay-millions-to-settle-misconduct-claims-11603368002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rethink-policies-as-citi... And again, what is the alternative? Make it a criminal case instead, send one moron to jail and nothing changes and no one gets compensation?
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        Compensation wouldn't be necessary if police were held personally accountable for their actions. There are literally no consequences.
quantified 5y ago
Note, this has nothing to do with not facing criminal charges. It prevents any civil damages being awarded from any jurisdiction if I read the article correctly. You make a mistake that destroys innocent people’s property, and in some cases health and lives, and it doesn’t matter, no requirement for competence if you can get someone to believe you’re probably in good faith.

4 points by 34679 5y ago

Isn't this exactly what qualified immunity is meant to do? You make a good-faith mistake as a public official, you don't face criminal charges. The state suffers civil liability.

netizen-936824 5y ago
Not reading the entire search warrant, in a situation like this especially, seems bad faith.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Does it? It seems they did but they were expecting a different looking house? Remember, stupidity, laziness etc are not bad faith. Bad faith requires intent.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    'For his part, Cody said he checked for a signature, verified it permitted no-knock entry, and confirmed the address, but declined to read it "all the way through."' The officer in charge of the search did not even know what was permitted to be searched for. Declining to read such an important document is bad faith.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      The court disagrees. Remember bad faith is a very high bar. You need to show he intentionally raided the wrong house. Incompetence and laziness ARE a valid defence here. Did he have something particular against this other house? Did he know the occupants? Did he profit somehow from raiding the wrong house? Because if not, he's just a lazy, stupid person. Lazy and stupid is exactly what qualified immunity protects. This actually works in the "victims" favour as well remember. If we decide the office is legally responsible, that means the state isn't. So the guy who now has 6 figure damages can only officer dumbass, net worth 4 figures or less. Being able to sue the state is a much better deal here.
      - netizen-936824 5y ago
        Perhaps for monetary damages, but not for departmental change.
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        Isn't monetary damages exactly how you achieve change? The mayor and voters don't care if some moron gets locked up for this. They do care if the town budget collapses and taxes have to go up to pay for it.
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        Has that been happening with all the payouts? I haven't heard anything like that, and the people who do the violating get to keep on violating. Isn't that what law is meant to be about? Preventing and punishing harm.
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        I think reforms have been push by either big payouts or insurers refusing further coverage. According to this article, Chicago are taking it seriously: https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rethink-policies-as-cities-pay-millions-to-settle-misconduct-claims-11603368002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rethink-policies-as-citi... And again, what is the alternative? Make it a criminal case instead, send one moron to jail and nothing changes and no one gets compensation?
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        Compensation wouldn't be necessary if police were held personally accountable for their actions. There are literally no consequences.

quantified 5y ago

Note, this has nothing to do with not facing criminal charges. It prevents any civil damages being awarded from any jurisdiction if I read the article correctly. You make a mistake that destroys innocent people’s property, and in some cases health and lives, and it doesn’t matter, no requirement for competence if you can get someone to believe you’re probably in good faith.