...and have to live in the city? What's the pay like vs cost of housing in city limits in NYC?
FWIW, residency restrictions were struck down here long ago. It went from "in the county" to "in the county or any bordering county" and is now "in the county or 50 miles from any county border" for residency requirements for police and fire.
I wonder if SCOTUS will eventually weigh in on this. Qualified Immunity prevents Ex Post Facto issues, as case law is a constantly moving target, but does that apply to civil lawsuits? I've no idea.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
The first five years can be tough, especially for those with kids....but after 5 they're making in the 80's, which is enough to get a 500sqft on your own in an okay neighborhood, or a 1000sqft+ with a roommate or working spouse.
* assuming you're planning on for retirement, spending money wisely and not depending on gov't bailout like most NYers.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Qualified immunity is covered by NYS Civil Service Law. It doesn’t matter what the NYC Council of the Mayor do.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
How often is qualified Immunity actually successfully invoked in cases where the police are sued?
I think that many state and federal law enforcement agencies will be seeing former NYPD applicants in the hiring pool soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not addressing NY specifically, but the short answer is "Fairly Often."
The idea was created by courts as a way of trying to address the fact that cops have to make decisions about search and seizure (including force and deadly force) issues in seconds out on the street, and typically in hostile and dynamic situations, and simply cannot be expected to have encyclopedic knowledge of relevant constitutional law, or research the issue before acting, so qualified immunity will protect a cop from liability for a mistake, so long as the mistake is a reasonable one. Qualified immunity does not generally protect malicious acts or blatant stupidity, just errors that are deemed by the courts to be a mistake that a reasonable cop might make. Removing those protections makes it easier for plaintiffs and their contingent-fee counsel to sue for money, which is generally paid by the employing agency and not the officer anyway. It's all about the $$, no matter what some folks claim.
Just my opinion.
The more I think about this the more it seems to be posturing and nothing more. Wouldn't claims be heard in either federal or state court, depending on which constitution is alleged to have been violated? And the city would have no authority over either?
What courts would this possibly apply to?
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.