4 ms·

Qualified immunity does not protect officers, it protects municipalities. Indemnification protects officers, but no one ever talks about it.

ch4s3 4y ago
Sure I'm glossing over that, but for practical purposes you have no redress because the officers were acting in their official capacity.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  They key difference here is whether you care more about bad officers facing consequences or the victims getting compensation. Eliminating qualified immunity only helps with the second part and does zero with respect to the first, but advocates of reform never make that clear. Even with qualified immunity sometimes victims win judgments. On the other hand indemnification is 100% universal and effective at protecting cops. No cop ever pays anything out of his own pocket, period.
  - landemva 4y ago
    Same with judges and court clerks. 'Because government'.
    - bradleyjg 4y ago
      They have absolute immunity. That’s a separate issue.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I have a feeling that if municipalities start having to pay out lots of settlements for civil rights abuses by police, they'll start reconsidering the limits of indemnification.
    - bradleyjg 4y ago
      It hasn’t happened in practice. NYC’s is way up this year, Adams is doubling down on supporting the police. Instead of hoping for trickle down to work why not attack the problem directly?
- landemva 4y ago
  Practically speaking there is no effective recourse. For things to change, need USSC to remove the qualified immunity doctrine which USSC basically created on their own in 1970s. State law could put in a few fixes, but generally few people are really interested. A couple years ago BLM had energy yet was distracted and diverted from the enabling problem - USSC qualified immunity.
burkaman 4y ago
Why do you say this? Qualified immunity explicitly only applies to individuals, not if you're suing the government as a whole.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  Police officers in the United States are universally indemnified by their employers. There’s no constitutional or case law which requires this it’s just the rule everywhere. Indemnification means that their employer (i.e. municipalities) must pay for their legal defense in a civil suit and any judgment that arises under it. 1983 cases are technically against individuals but not at all in a practical sense. For some reason activists have zero interest in tackling this issue even though it could be done on a divide and conquer basis and even though it would provide much more deterrence than eliminating QI. I almost suspect the influence of the plaintiffs’ bar is at play.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    Ok I see what you mean. I think you underestimate how hard this would be though. You'd probably have to basically eliminate police unions somehow.
  - technothrasher 4y ago
    I'm still confused on what your saying. If a public official wins a § 1983 suit under a qualified immunity defense, there are no monetary damages to be indemnified against. Their employers only have to indemnify them if it is found they did not have qualified immunity and then had a judgement against them. Are you saying that, for practical purposes, qualified immunity doesn't matter to the individual as they will almost always be indemnified anyway? I suppose this is true in a pragmatic way, but not in theory. As you say, there's no law that says the government agency has to indemnify. While I'd be surprised to find a case where the official ended up paying anything out of their own pocket, there are plenty of cases where the official has lost their job over a judgement against them and none that I could find where they won the case due to being covered under qualified immunity but still lost their job over it.

ch4s3 4y ago

Sure I'm glossing over that, but for practical purposes you have no redress because the officers were acting in their official capacity.

bradleyjg 4y ago
They key difference here is whether you care more about bad officers facing consequences or the victims getting compensation. Eliminating qualified immunity only helps with the second part and does zero with respect to the first, but advocates of reform never make that clear. Even with qualified immunity sometimes victims win judgments. On the other hand indemnification is 100% universal and effective at protecting cops. No cop ever pays anything out of his own pocket, period.
- landemva 4y ago
  Same with judges and court clerks. 'Because government'.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    They have absolute immunity. That’s a separate issue.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I have a feeling that if municipalities start having to pay out lots of settlements for civil rights abuses by police, they'll start reconsidering the limits of indemnification.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    It hasn’t happened in practice. NYC’s is way up this year, Adams is doubling down on supporting the police. Instead of hoping for trickle down to work why not attack the problem directly?
landemva 4y ago
Practically speaking there is no effective recourse. For things to change, need USSC to remove the qualified immunity doctrine which USSC basically created on their own in 1970s. State law could put in a few fixes, but generally few people are really interested. A couple years ago BLM had energy yet was distracted and diverted from the enabling problem - USSC qualified immunity.

burkaman 4y ago

Why do you say this? Qualified immunity explicitly only applies to individuals, not if you're suing the government as a whole.

bradleyjg 4y ago
Police officers in the United States are universally indemnified by their employers. There’s no constitutional or case law which requires this it’s just the rule everywhere. Indemnification means that their employer (i.e. municipalities) must pay for their legal defense in a civil suit and any judgment that arises under it. 1983 cases are technically against individuals but not at all in a practical sense. For some reason activists have zero interest in tackling this issue even though it could be done on a divide and conquer basis and even though it would provide much more deterrence than eliminating QI. I almost suspect the influence of the plaintiffs’ bar is at play.
- burkaman 4y ago
  Ok I see what you mean. I think you underestimate how hard this would be though. You'd probably have to basically eliminate police unions somehow.
- technothrasher 4y ago
  I'm still confused on what your saying. If a public official wins a § 1983 suit under a qualified immunity defense, there are no monetary damages to be indemnified against. Their employers only have to indemnify them if it is found they did not have qualified immunity and then had a judgement against them. Are you saying that, for practical purposes, qualified immunity doesn't matter to the individual as they will almost always be indemnified anyway? I suppose this is true in a pragmatic way, but not in theory. As you say, there's no law that says the government agency has to indemnify. While I'd be surprised to find a case where the official ended up paying anything out of their own pocket, there are plenty of cases where the official has lost their job over a judgement against them and none that I could find where they won the case due to being covered under qualified immunity but still lost their job over it.