Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Virginia House passed bill that removes QI for LE.

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Yeah I think my dream home is totally not my kids/wifes dream home... sigh...

    If I want to shoot a deer from my porch in my underwear at the break of dawn... I want to do it dammit! Needing a 4x4 means I won't have douches showing up to my house at random...
    Luckily, my wife and I are compatible on this one. It's cool to shoot off the back deck at will.
    EXPECT PLEASURE
    KNOWLEDGE IS SEXY
    EXPECT PAIN
    KNOWLEDGE IS TORTURE

  2. #32
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    I just (like yesterday) took a class where the instructor and the oldest member in the class recalled an era in this state where smart officers bought what amounted to malpractice insurance. Also referenced was a study (by the instructor; it would take some heinous research to verify, which I have not done, and likely will not do) that from 2014-2019 54% of qualified immunity claims were rejected by the Appellate and Supreme Courts....
    I've got the study, I'll dig for it. IIRC, the number of cases that get QI is closer to single digits rather than mid double digits.

    Edit (emphasis mine) ... 3.9% ...

    Here's the abstract:

    How Qualified Immunity Fails
    abstract. This Article reports the findings of the largest and most comprehensive study to date of the role qualified immunity plays in constitutional litigation. Qualified immunity shields government officials from constitutional claims for money damages so long as the officials did not violate clearly established law. The Supreme Court has described the doctrine as incredibly strong—protecting “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Legal scholars and commentators describe qualified immunity in equally stark terms, often criticizing the doctrine for closing the courthouse doors to plaintiffs whose rights have been violated. The Court has repeatedly explained that qualified immunity must be as powerful as it is to protect government officials from burdens associated with participating in discovery and trial. Yet the Supreme Court has relied on no empirical evidence to support its assertion that qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from these assumed burdens.
    This Article is the first to test this foundational assumption underlying the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity decisions. I reviewed the dockets of 1,183 Section 1983 cases filed against state and local law enforcement defendants in five federal court districts over a two-year period and measured the frequency with which qualified immunity motions were brought by defendants, granted by courts, and dispositive before discovery and trial. I found that qualified immunity rarely served its intended role as a shield from discovery and trial in these cases. Across the five districts in my study, just thirty-eight (3.9%) of the 979 cases in which qualified immunity could be raised were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. And when one considers all the Section 1983 cases brought against law enforcement defendants—each of which could expose law enforcement officials to burdens associated with discovery and trial—just seven (0.6%) were dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage and thirty-one (2.6%) were dismissed at summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. My findings enrich our understanding of qualified immunity’s role in constitutional litigation, belie expectations about the policy interests served by qualified immunity, and show that qualified immunity doctrine should be modified to reflect its actual role in constitutional litigation.


    Schwartz_1ki1sac4.pdf
    Last edited by Erick Gelhaus; 09-10-2020 at 03:06 PM.

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    USA
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Erick Gelhaus View Post
    I've got the study, I'll dig for it. IIRC, the number of cases that get QI is closer to single digits rather than mid double digits.

    Schwartz_1ki1sac4.pdf
    Thanks for taking the time to dig out that link.

  5. #35
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to dig out that link.
    You're welcome.

  6. #36
    They ended QI in Colorado. I am leaving as soon as I get the chance.

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    USA
    There is so much emphasis lately on holding LE 'accountable' for their action. In the good old days, people wanted the criminals prosecuted.
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  8. #38
    Depressed DINK TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    KPK
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    We definitely agree on that. Maybe it's because I work in a profession with mandatory malpractice insurance, but I certainly wouldn't want to do something on a daily basis that risks personal liability without adequate coverage.
    Anyone wearing a badge today without professional liability insurance is fucking nuts.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •