This is Another Reason to End Qualified Immunity

[OneMoreEvan]

This is kinda off topic but an armed security guard or P.I. has to have a surety bond through CLEET and its some kind of insurance and even though I have one, Im still not really quite sure what it is or why its required. Do police officers have to be bonded? Is this the same thing as the insurance ya'll are talking about?

I'm bonded through my company. I myself am not sure what it is, but I know that if you want to bond yourself, it costs like $5000

 

[Glocktogo]

I get that, and most of my response was directed to that. An officer could not afford the premium, and the cities could not afford to pay them what they would need to for them to cover those premiums. Cities cannot get qualified applicants at the current pay scale. Either way, taxpayers are paying the premium, whether the city pays the settlement, or the officer pays the premium, since his salary is paid by the taxpayers. It just passes hands one more time before its paid out. I get ending qualified immunity, but just rewrite the law to read like Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws, if justified, you cant be held civilly liable. For example, the officer who came home to the wrong apt and shot the tenant thinking he had broke into hers. Why should qualified immunity apply when she's off duty? How did it relate to her job? The cop always being on duty thing was determined by the Supreme Court to not be true/applicable, so QI shouldnt always apply either.

The current problem is that the bad apples never feel the pain. They keep violating constitutional rights, the union keeps defending them and the agency's governing body just pays the civil suit settlements and judgements.

At some point, an individual LEO who is the constitutional equivalent of a bull in a china closet, should be considered a "high risk" and be required to pay their own liability insurance. If they reach the point they're considered "uninsurable", then they should have their qualified immunity revoked and be held personally liable for any and all violations. Look at it as a liability equivalent to Giglio Impairment.

So I don't think every LEO should be required to self-insure, but the ones who cause the most chaos definitely should.

 

[bigfug]

The current problem is that the bad apples never feel the pain. They keep violating constitutional rights, the union keeps defending them and the agency's governing body just pays the civil suit settlements and judgements.

At some point, an individual LEO who is the constitutional equivalent of a bull in a china closet, should be considered a "high risk" and be required to pay their own liability insurance. If they reach the point they're considered "uninsurable", then they should have their qualified immunity revoked and be held personally liable for any and all violations. Look at it as a liability equivalent to Giglio Impairment.

So I don't think every LEO should be required to self-insure, but the ones who cause the most chaos definitely should.

To an extent, I agree with you, but working with (not for) our department, I know those guys get charged criminally, fired, or punished. Making a problem officer carry insurance isnt going to fix the problem. It's a broken system, and making the department pay may eventually cause the system to fix itself. Our justice system is broken, and this is just another piece of that. Judicially its FUBAR, technically PD is part of the executive branch, which we know is as well. Unfortunately, what is more likely to happen is the feds will take over the dept, replacing the Chief, and having oversight for 3 years, might be 5? Cant remember exactly.

 

[Glocktogo]

To an extent, I agree with you, but working with (not for) our department, I know those guys get charged criminally, fired, or punished. Making a problem officer carry insurance isnt going to fix the problem. It's a broken system, and making the department pay may eventually cause the system to fix itself. Our justice system is broken, and this is just another piece of that. Judicially its FUBAR, technically PD is part of the executive branch, which we know is as well. Unfortunately, what is more likely to happen is the feds will take over the dept, replacing the Chief, and having oversight for 3 years, might be 5? Cant remember exactly.

Depends on the consent decree negotiated in each case, but I get your point. That's the biggest issue, agencies rarely ever pay. It just goes against the general tax ledger for that jurisdiction and ultimately all taxpayer funded services take the hit. When the penalty gets amortized like that, it's easy to let bad things keep happening.