Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qualified Immunity in CA

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Qualified Immunity in CA

    Hey everyone, just reaching to see if there are others who may have more experience with this. CA is about to get rid of Qualified Immunity (QI) with some fairly liberal language. I was looking on ways to best protect myself and family, one being insurance. Kept hearing about the term umbrella insurance, but when I called around, no one offered it for the purposes of LEOs.

    What have others done in response to this issue in other states who have already been dealing with the QI issue?

    Below is the excerpt of the law FYSA.

    SEC. 3. Section 52.1 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
    52.1. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.

    (b) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are determined to have been violated.

    (c) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (b), may institute and prosecute in their own name and on their own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured, including appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct as described in subdivision (b).



  • #2
    Porac ldf.

    Comment


    • #3
      The legal hoops you poor USA buggers have to deal with is NUTS!
      Up here, as long as it is lawful, by policy, reasonable, and no more than necessary, whatever we do is good.
      #32936 - Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 1975-10-27 / 2010-12-29
      Proud Dad of #54266 - RCMP - 2007-02-12 to date
      RCMP Veterans Association - Regina Division member
      Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada - Associate (Retired) member
      "Smile" - no!

      Comment


      • #4
        The best way to protect yourself would be to move the hell out of Kommifornia.

        Comment


        • #5
          Way back in the 80's we were taught the phrase "acting in good faith". This meant that if we were following guide lines and our intentions were good we would be covered by the city. Rational leaders realized that you needed cops to feel that they were somewhat secure in their livelihood if things went sideways. situations are dynamic and they don't fit nicely into inflexible procedures. Cops accept the risk of injury and even death in the performance of their jobs but will draw the line if their actions are considered a crapshoot. Don't believe me? The Nyc city council removed qualified immunity from the NYPD. Whether or not this will stand legal scrutiny remains to be seen. Apparently these guys don't want to be the test case.

          https://nypost.com/2021/08/26/cops-s...hoots-himself/
          Last edited by BNWS; 09-08-2021, 08:39 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            You have a few options...

            Professional liability insurance may cover you if you're sued for actions in the course of your duties. Of course, insurance companies are notorious for putting wording in insurance policies so the DON'T have to pay out, so...

            You can just keep on keeping on and wait for (or be) a test case of this new law. There's probably a better than even-money chance that such laws won't survive judicial scrutiny at the Appeals and/or Federal levels, but nobody wants to be that test case.

            You can leave a state that clearly hates LEO's for a state that doesn't. Of just leave LE all together.
            "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
            -Friedrich Nietzsche

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BNWS View Post
              The Nyc city council removed qualified immunity from the NYPD. Whether or not this will stand legal scrutiny remains to be seen. Apparently these guys don't want to be the test case.

              https://nypost.com/2021/08/26/cops-s...hoots-himself/
              Officer 1: Did that dumbass just shoot himself in the leg?
              Officer 2: Yup.
              Officer 3: Think we should do something?
              Officer 4: Nah, Officer Darwin will handle it.

              Comment


              • #8
                I am in the process of getting police officer professional liability insurance. It may not be the best option out there but I spoke to a few agents and they said because this is new there is no standard insurance policy and in many cases an umbrella policy will exclude occupational issues.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ns1983 View Post
                  I am in the process of getting police officer professional liability insurance. It may not be the best option out there but I spoke to a few agents and they said because this is new there is no standard insurance policy and in many cases an umbrella policy will exclude occupational issues.
                  I did the same thing the other day. I called my insurance (USAA) and they related the same thing. It's so new, they don't have any options. I brought up the LEO coverage and, after they spoke to the carrier, they said that is more for the agency vs. individual officer. At this time they couldn't point me to a plan/carrier who would be able to fulfill me needs.

                  They said, using 9/11as an example,, since there hasn't been a need/precedence for this type of insurance, there really isn't anything out there. However, following the passing of this bill, expect to see carriers start creating policy.

                  Same token, we have ambulance chasers now. Soon there will be PV chasers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Is California ending Qualified Immunity? That’s news to me. I would imagining your POA leadership (or whatever your association is called) should be able to explain what is going on.

                    Whoever told you Qualified Immunity was going away in California is wrong.
                    semper destravit

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RGDS View Post
                      Is California ending Qualified Immunity? That’s news to me. I would imagining your POA leadership (or whatever your association is called) should be able to explain what is going on.

                      Whoever told you Qualified Immunity was going away in California is wrong.
                      Correct, it is not officially signed by Governor. But it's on his desk, and he only has a few more days to sign. At this point in time I'm fully expecting it to go through.

                      My association doesn't have any direction on it.. going to be reactionary

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        RGDS might be correct. I got this from PORAC and it appears as if they fought good to get a lot of the "nastier" things taken out of the original bill. However, kind of hard to decipher. I'll link the PORAC news below for you all to read.

                        https://campaignlp.constantcontact.c...b-60e0a75c1ccb

                        Comment

                        MR300x250 Tablet

                        Collapse

                        What's Going On

                        Collapse

                        There are currently 4922 users online. 301 members and 4621 guests.

                        Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                        Welcome Ad

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X