4 ms·

If the officers actions don't fall under qualified immunity then he can be sued personally and would be responsible for paying any damages awarded. The taxpayer

If the officers actions don't fall under qualified immunity then he can be sued personally and would be responsible for paying any damages awarded. The taxpayers might elect to cover the officers damages but they are generally not required to by state or federal law. There are some exceptions to this like New Mexico which abolished qualified immunity but at the same time required that the employer of the police cover any damages resulting from cases where the officer would have previously been covered by qualified immunity.

matthewmcg 4y ago
Even if indemnification is not required by law, it's frequently written into the terms of many employment contracts and collective bargaining agreements. A recent study [1] using public records requests found that virtually all officers are indemnified, meaning they don't have to personally satisfy a judgement against them. [1] https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/police-indemnification/ https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/polic...
- aidenn0 4y ago
  I'm actually fine with indemnification because it creates an incentive for departments to not employ cops that are going to get them sued.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - msbarnett 4y ago
    This might be true if the lawsuit damages were paid out of police budgets, but in many instances this isn't the case – the lawsuits are paid out of a combination of municipal liability insurance claims and the general city budget, eg) https://abcnews.go.com/US/millions-lawsuit-settlements-hidden-cost-police-misconduct-legal/story?id=70999540 https://abcnews.go.com/US/millions-lawsuit-settlements-hidde... or https://www.npr.org/2020/09/19/914170214/police-settlements-how-the-cost-of-misconduct-impacts-cities-and-taxpayers https://www.npr.org/2020/09/19/914170214/police-settlements-... There's a broad disconnect between the police departments, their hiring and disciplinary practices, and the consequences of the lawsuits their actions generate.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Tax revenue is fungible, it does not make a difference which budget it comes from. The city’s residents are still going to have the same expectation of police services. It has to be individual police that are liable.
      - msbarnett 4y ago
        The overall fungibility of tax revenue is irrelevant to the criticism of the perverse incentives at play here. Tying the payouts specifically to the police budget would mean that when the city's residents' policing service expectations failed to be met, one could point to that being a direct consequence of police actions costing them their own policing budget, increasing pressure on the public to do things like elect effective police oversight commissioners who will act to reign in their abuses and provide good value-for-cost policing. The status quo instead disconnects the oversight from the consequences, leading to the quiet defunding of other services for political reasons (since it would require city counsels to constantly vote to cut police budgets in proportion to each damage award, rather than happening "neutrally" by centering the legal defense and payouts within the police budget to begin with).
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > Tying the payouts specifically to the police budget would mean that when the city's residents' policing service expectations failed to be met, one could point to that being a direct consequence of police actions costing them their own policing budget, increasing pressure on the public to do things like elect effective police oversight commissioners who will act to reign in their abuses and provide good value-for-cost policing. This is a very tall order that I predict would not come true. It is already very easy to see how much police misconduct costs a city’s tax base, but push come to shove, most people will think they are isolated cases and will not happen to them. > The status quo instead disconnects the oversight from the consequences, leading to the quiet defunding of other services for political reasons This political reason is that voting in local elections is not common. 100% of the police and their allies will be voting, while most others will be spending their evenings on things other than paying attention to local politics. There are a few exceptions, but overall, I would not expect voters to react to feeling the pain of reduced police budgets with “let’s dig into why police budgets are getting smaller”. By and large, they will simply vote for the politician that provides the simplest message, which is the incumbents are refusing to properly fund the police department, and if you vote for me, I will properly fund it. The only solution I see is holding individual cops accountable, including for criminal charges like perjury for lying such as the detective in this case clearly did.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    It also creates an incentive for departments to cover up for cops who do something they shouldn't have done.
stonogo 4y ago
Your point is irrelevant as Novak is suing the city, not any individual officer. This has nothing to do with qualified immunity. Edit: the above is wrong, and I apologize. I got all hopped up thinking of the wrong case.
- msbarnett 4y ago
  Completely wrong. The 6th circuit's affirmation of the lower court's summary judgement was entirely based on the officers' entitlement to qualified immunity. Read the opinion yourself: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/18-3373/18-3373-2019-07-29.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/18... . That's the particular dispute that's heading to the Supreme Court. The municipal liability is unrelated to this amicus brief, which is entirely about the QI dispute.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  He is suing the individual officers: https://reason.com/2022/09/28/a-parodist-asks-scotus-to-let-him-sue-the-cops-who-arrested-him-for-making-fun-of-them/ https://reason.com/2022/09/28/a-parodist-asks-scotus-to-let-... >After a jury unanimously acquitted Novak of that felony, he sued seven officers for violating his First Amendment rights. >But this year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that the officers he sued were protected by qualified immunity, which shields police from liability for violating constitutional rights unless their alleged misconduct ran afoul of "clearly established" law.

matthewmcg 4y ago

Even if indemnification is not required by law, it's frequently written into the terms of many employment contracts and collective bargaining agreements. A recent study [1] using public records requests found that virtually all officers are indemnified, meaning they don't have to personally satisfy a judgement against them. [1] https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/police-indemnification/ https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/polic...

aidenn0 4y ago
I'm actually fine with indemnification because it creates an incentive for departments to not employ cops that are going to get them sued.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- msbarnett 4y ago
  This might be true if the lawsuit damages were paid out of police budgets, but in many instances this isn't the case – the lawsuits are paid out of a combination of municipal liability insurance claims and the general city budget, eg) https://abcnews.go.com/US/millions-lawsuit-settlements-hidden-cost-police-misconduct-legal/story?id=70999540 https://abcnews.go.com/US/millions-lawsuit-settlements-hidde... or https://www.npr.org/2020/09/19/914170214/police-settlements-how-the-cost-of-misconduct-impacts-cities-and-taxpayers https://www.npr.org/2020/09/19/914170214/police-settlements-... There's a broad disconnect between the police departments, their hiring and disciplinary practices, and the consequences of the lawsuits their actions generate.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Tax revenue is fungible, it does not make a difference which budget it comes from. The city’s residents are still going to have the same expectation of police services. It has to be individual police that are liable.
    - msbarnett 4y ago
      The overall fungibility of tax revenue is irrelevant to the criticism of the perverse incentives at play here. Tying the payouts specifically to the police budget would mean that when the city's residents' policing service expectations failed to be met, one could point to that being a direct consequence of police actions costing them their own policing budget, increasing pressure on the public to do things like elect effective police oversight commissioners who will act to reign in their abuses and provide good value-for-cost policing. The status quo instead disconnects the oversight from the consequences, leading to the quiet defunding of other services for political reasons (since it would require city counsels to constantly vote to cut police budgets in proportion to each damage award, rather than happening "neutrally" by centering the legal defense and payouts within the police budget to begin with).
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > Tying the payouts specifically to the police budget would mean that when the city's residents' policing service expectations failed to be met, one could point to that being a direct consequence of police actions costing them their own policing budget, increasing pressure on the public to do things like elect effective police oversight commissioners who will act to reign in their abuses and provide good value-for-cost policing. This is a very tall order that I predict would not come true. It is already very easy to see how much police misconduct costs a city’s tax base, but push come to shove, most people will think they are isolated cases and will not happen to them. > The status quo instead disconnects the oversight from the consequences, leading to the quiet defunding of other services for political reasons This political reason is that voting in local elections is not common. 100% of the police and their allies will be voting, while most others will be spending their evenings on things other than paying attention to local politics. There are a few exceptions, but overall, I would not expect voters to react to feeling the pain of reduced police budgets with “let’s dig into why police budgets are getting smaller”. By and large, they will simply vote for the politician that provides the simplest message, which is the incumbents are refusing to properly fund the police department, and if you vote for me, I will properly fund it. The only solution I see is holding individual cops accountable, including for criminal charges like perjury for lying such as the detective in this case clearly did.
- int_19h 4y ago
  It also creates an incentive for departments to cover up for cops who do something they shouldn't have done.

stonogo 4y ago

Your point is irrelevant as Novak is suing the city, not any individual officer. This has nothing to do with qualified immunity. Edit: the above is wrong, and I apologize. I got all hopped up thinking of the wrong case.

msbarnett 4y ago
Completely wrong. The 6th circuit's affirmation of the lower court's summary judgement was entirely based on the officers' entitlement to qualified immunity. Read the opinion yourself: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/18-3373/18-3373-2019-07-29.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/18... . That's the particular dispute that's heading to the Supreme Court. The municipal liability is unrelated to this amicus brief, which is entirely about the QI dispute.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
He is suing the individual officers: https://reason.com/2022/09/28/a-parodist-asks-scotus-to-let-him-sue-the-cops-who-arrested-him-for-making-fun-of-them/ https://reason.com/2022/09/28/a-parodist-asks-scotus-to-let-... >After a jury unanimously acquitted Novak of that felony, he sued seven officers for violating his First Amendment rights. >But this year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that the officers he sued were protected by qualified immunity, which shields police from liability for violating constitutional rights unless their alleged misconduct ran afoul of "clearly established" law.