Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: NYC and Qualified Immunity for Police Officers

  1. #11
    Site Supporter Coyotesfan97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix Metro, AZ
    I’ve always liked the English system of civil lawsuits where the loser pays the court costs. It would cut down on frivolous lawsuits. Every time I see bans on qualified immunity I think our response should be okay but the loser on the lawsuit pays the court. The response always seems to be the same as charging false reporting for lying about a complaint. Oh noes people will be scared to complain or file suits. Uh that’s kind of the idea they should be scared to file frivolous stuff. It’ll never happen but a retired guy can dream.
    Just a dog chauffeur that used to hold the dumb end of the leash.

  2. #12
    It is funny, I got a call from the Prosecutors Office last week about testifying in a case and I told them to just wait, the qualified immunity for them is going to go next. They often don't charge for what ever reason and I would like to see citizens to be able to sue them for not prosecuting after the the citizen becomes a victim the next time the suspect commits a crime.

    I would also like to see QI go away for politicians.

  3. #13
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    I think I've offered this thought ... judges need to start harshly, very harshly sanctioning those who lie, are provably dishonest, etc in these cases. Lies, dishonesty, etc by one party et al or another skews the field for granting summary judgment, etc.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    It is funny, I got a call from the Prosecutors Office last week about testifying in a case and I told them to just wait, the qualified immunity for them is going to go next. They often don't charge for what ever reason and I would like to see citizens to be able to sue them for not prosecuting after the the citizen becomes a victim the next time the suspect commits a crime.

    I would also like to see QI go away for politicians.
    I believe prosecutors have qualified immunity for some things, but have absolute immunity for prosecutorial decisions.

  5. #15
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    In the flyover zone
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    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?
    I can't speak for New York or NYC, but in general, the concept is a judicially-created one in federal courts, and since many state constitutions are very similar, many state courts apply the same rationale to cases brought in their system. Only Congress could bar qualified immunity from federal court cases and I don't know if they have the votes, although I know some congress people would like to accomplish that. Only the state legislatures could bar the immunity in state courts. If the state statutes grant similar remedies to those available under sec. 1983, and the state does away with qualified immunity, you might see cases getting filed more in state court.

    The only thing the NYC ordinance could affect is cases brought in city courts. Perhaps people sue cops in municipal court in New York? That seems very unlikely. I assume this is just virtue signalling or some other form of political move, with no meaningful effect, except perhaps to put pressure on Albany to do the same at a state level. That, seems to me to be the most likely purpose of this. But, I know little of New York politics or its legal system.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SF Bay Ahea
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff22 View Post
    How often is qualified Immunity actually successfully invoked in cases where the police are sued?
    https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/...63&context=ylj

    Not very often. Especially in use of force cases.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SF Bay Ahea
    Quote Originally Posted by Coyotesfan97 View Post
    I’ve always liked the English system of civil lawsuits where the loser pays the court costs. It would cut down on frivolous lawsuits. Every time I see bans on qualified immunity I think our response should be okay but the loser on the lawsuit pays the court. The response always seems to be the same as charging false reporting for lying about a complaint. Oh noes people will be scared to complain or file suits. Uh that’s kind of the idea they should be scared to file frivolous stuff. It’ll never happen but a retired guy can dream.
    It's not the English system. It's how the law works in EVERY other civilized country, but it would put too many ambulance chasers out of work. We have WAY too many attorneys per capita in the US. When there are more attorneys than Cops, or Doctors in CA, you get a self-licking ice cream cone.

  8. #18
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    In the flyover zone
    Quote Originally Posted by paherne View Post
    https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/...63&context=ylj

    Not very often. Especially in use of force cases.
    I have to admit that I read the inquiry as "how often invoked" and overlooked the "successfully" component, but nevertheless, I think that professor Schwartz' well-known and oft-cited journal article does not reflect some of the realities of the situation.

    In a recent survey of federal court cases by Reuters, court decisions for both the district and appellate courts over a 14 year period were analyzed. In the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, the appellate court granted 64% of police requests for immunity in excessive force cases from 2005 to 2019.

    In the 9th Circuit, appellate judges there granted 42% of police requests for immunity in excessive force cases over the same years. At the district court level, 435 federal district court rulings in excessive force cases from 2014 to 2018 in California and Texas were analyzed and judges in Texas granted immunity to police in 59% of cases, compared to 34% in California.

    The thing is, although the legal theory is pretty straightforward on its face, the results vary across the many districts and circuits. Additionally, the doctrine pertains to a wide variety of cases, from suits against correction officers to city cops to federal officers. The anti-police folks like to portray the situation as one in which it is "nearly impossible" to successfully sue cops, due to immunity. But we need to realize that many of the suits brought are just shy of absolutely frivolous, and granting qualified immunity protects the courts and the cities, counties and states from being tied up for months in an expensive and time-consuming civil suit that is marginal at best.

    Like with so much in the legal world, it is the facts that matter and bare statistics don't mean much. When Mary sues the cops because her son Jimmy was shot and killed by police as Jimmy was shooting at them, the city or county that those cops work for will likely raise qualified immunity in the hope of killing the case off quickly (no pun intended). They would probably an immunity defense when their cops shoot an unarmed person under circumstances that are questionable at best. Assuming immunity is granted in the first case and denied in the second, the statistics alone suggest a 50-50 chance of success on an immunity defense, but that would be misleading.

    In the words of the Supreme Court "qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably."

    So,I guess a better answer to the original question is that QI is raised fairly often and in appropriate cases, in some jurisdictions, is successful fairly often, while in cases involving unreasonable police behavior, the success rate drops considerably.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SF Bay Ahea
    Quote Originally Posted by jd950 View Post
    I have to admit that I read the inquiry as "how often invoked" and overlooked the "successfully" component, but nevertheless, I think that professor Schwartz' well-known and oft-cited journal article does not reflect some of the realities of the situation.

    In a recent survey of federal court cases by Reuters, court decisions for both the district and appellate courts over a 14 year period were analyzed. In the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, the appellate court granted 64% of police requests for immunity in excessive force cases from 2005 to 2019.

    In the 9th Circuit, appellate judges there granted 42% of police requests for immunity in excessive force cases over the same years. At the district court level, 435 federal district court rulings in excessive force cases from 2014 to 2018 in California and Texas were analyzed and judges in Texas granted immunity to police in 59% of cases, compared to 34% in California.

    The thing is, although the legal theory is pretty straightforward on its face, the results vary across the many districts and circuits. Additionally, the doctrine pertains to a wide variety of cases, from suits against correction officers to city cops to federal officers. The anti-police folks like to portray the situation as one in which it is "nearly impossible" to successfully sue cops, due to immunity. But we need to realize that many of the suits brought are just shy of absolutely frivolous, and granting qualified immunity protects the courts and the cities, counties and states from being tied up for months in an expensive and time-consuming civil suit that is marginal at best.

    Like with so much in the legal world, it is the facts that matter and bare statistics don't mean much. When Mary sues the cops because her son Jimmy was shot and killed by police as Jimmy was shooting at them, the city or county that those cops work for will likely raise qualified immunity in the hope of killing the case off quickly (no pun intended). They would probably an immunity defense when their cops shoot an unarmed person under circumstances that are questionable at best. Assuming immunity is granted in the first case and denied in the second, the statistics alone suggest a 50-50 chance of success on an immunity defense, but that would be misleading.

    In the words of the Supreme Court "qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably."

    So,I guess a better answer to the original question is that QI is raised fairly often and in appropriate cases, in some jurisdictions, is successful fairly often, while in cases involving unreasonable police behavior, the success rate drops considerably.
    It varies even more depending on which district you are in within CA. My attorney was quite clear that my 1983 case would likely have been dismissed at MSJ if I worked a few miles south of where I work and my case was heard in the San Jose Federal Court. As it was, being in the San Francisco Federal Court, even though the law was not clearly defined, MSJ was not granted. It's worse in the Oakland Federal Court. The opinions of some of the attorneys that defend municipalities in Fed court is that QI basically does not exist but for all but the most egregious cases. I tend to agree with this assertion, at least locally. I certainly have very little respect for the Federal judiciary.

  10. #20
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    In the flyover zone
    Quote Originally Posted by paherne View Post
    It varies even more depending on which district you are in within CA. My attorney was quite clear that my 1983 case would likely have been dismissed at MSJ if I worked a few miles south of where I work and my case was heard in the San Jose Federal Court. As it was, being in the San Francisco Federal Court, even though the law was not clearly defined, MSJ was not granted. It's worse in the Oakland Federal Court. The opinions of some of the attorneys that defend municipalities in Fed court is that QI basically does not exist but for all but the most egregious cases. I tend to agree with this assertion, at least locally. I certainly have very little respect for the Federal judiciary.
    Yes, the 9th Circuit is a special place. L.A. north to Seattle is even more special in many ways. I think that outside of the 9th Circuit, QI gets more respect. It isn't a golden ticket or anything, and really is of more value to the employing entities than the cops, but it does help get rid of BS cases early in some situations.

    Despite what I said about the 9th Circuit and the left coast, my area is no picnic. We have no qualified immunity for cops in state court now and we have increased the remedies to equal what is available in federal court. You can probably guess where excessive force suits are going to start getting filed now.

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
  •