Great question! The bill's language is limited and there hasn't been a lot of public discussion on this point (or the bill) so for now at least, it's difficult to answer that question. That said, I tend to agree that attorneys would likely attempt to go after not only the insurance company, but the city, as well.
A legislator in the State of Texas introduced a similar bill, so it wouldn't surprise me if other states were to catch on.
This is the trend. Eating away at QI on the state level. Police unions should try to fight it & lobby against it. But. Be ready with a plan. Start talking to ins companies. I think we can only hold them off so long.
I fear you are correct, and yes the police unions most definitely need to be prepared to fight this. Anti-cop people are not going to just walk away. Even if they don't succeed now, they will eventually resurface.
I believe New Mexico passed a bill eliminating QI protections for officers, as well as all government employees?
At the federal level, the Ending Qualified Immunity Act was introduced in both the U.S. Senate and the House in the current Congress. There thankfully hasn't been a lot of movement in either chamber: H.R. 2847 has 44 co-sponsors (still too many) and S. 1196 has just two.
Interesting that it’s touted as a cost saving measure… yeah, for the city. The cops are just going to be the ones footing the bill. I won’t be surprised to see “malpractice insurance” becoming part of benefits packages in the future if things continue in a direction where qualified immunity is abolished.
This was the inevitable and predictable result of removing Qualified Immunity. Another “I told you so” moment, unfortunately.
Forcing officers to carry their own liability insurance is just another form of a community tax, because it will require agencies to bump pay (if they want to remain competitive in hiring).
Just like in the additional costs passed on to the taxpayers in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually for body cameras, in the end it won’t have any impact on use of force cases.
Why? Because human behavior will always be volatile and unpredictable.
Maybe the next step will be to require all citizens to carry personal liability insurance if they want to move about in public, this way they can be protected from the unpredictable nature of other humans, and we, the people, can be “protected” from them.
I'm also concerned about other potential legal fees and damages the officer would be required to pay out-of-pocket. You're correct: this would harm recruitment efforts and result in an increase in retirements and resignations.
sounds scary on its face... another added cost borne by street cops. some places they buy their own gear (including Kevlar and weapon). police wages, in urban and suburban areas have ballooned to attract or as a lady ditch effort to retain. in those places it's probably affordable.
but two points of consideration offhand.
(1) much police misconduct is in gray areas. where they are acting in good faith to resolve a problem. and only much later, when things are calmed do people find a policy violation. or sometimes the officer is in policy, but a unique circumstance makes the policy solution imperfect. agencies should bear costs of misconduct that arises out of bad policy and training or cases where bad supervision led to the result
(2) ultimately this cost will hit the agency and thus the taxpayer. retention and recruiting are struggling agencies are paying premium to get or retain people. so, even if they push the cost to the cop... the agency then will need to raise wages.
either way the cost hits the agency. jurisdictions should indemnity police with few exceptions for official conduct.
I was watching a segment by New York's Finest: Retired & Unfiltered Podcast on this issue, and they discussed your first point. You (and they) are correct. It's difficult to see how this would work logistically.
In June 2020, I was still at my agency. This is the height of the Corona-virus (literally means head cold) and an employee tells my wife that he is unavailable for the rest of the day so his teenage daughter can witness and be a part of the BLM/ George Floyd protests in NY/NJ. (They were the deluded who thought we were experiencing a highly fatal pandemic. They're the clowns who used terms like super spreader events.) We are not outnumbered in strength. Sheepdogs protect the sheep from the wolves. We need to elect and stand behind great Shepards who provide cover for the sheepdogs!
Thank you for covering this.
Im curious.
If the cops get insurance policies - what prevents a plaintiff from still suing the city as well as the insurance company?
Would the city be totally off the hook?
I doubt it.
If there is a “George Floyd” type incident in NYC - will Ben Crump only go after the insurance company?
Also - it seems like this is the direction a lot of states are going (or trying to go) If they do - how can police best negotiate??
My thoughts.
•Must be a group policy & ins. companies can’t refuse to insure individual officers.
•Pay raises to cover the premiums.
Great question! The bill's language is limited and there hasn't been a lot of public discussion on this point (or the bill) so for now at least, it's difficult to answer that question. That said, I tend to agree that attorneys would likely attempt to go after not only the insurance company, but the city, as well.
A legislator in the State of Texas introduced a similar bill, so it wouldn't surprise me if other states were to catch on.
Thanks for your support!
This is the trend. Eating away at QI on the state level. Police unions should try to fight it & lobby against it. But. Be ready with a plan. Start talking to ins companies. I think we can only hold them off so long.
I fear you are correct, and yes the police unions most definitely need to be prepared to fight this. Anti-cop people are not going to just walk away. Even if they don't succeed now, they will eventually resurface.
I believe New Mexico passed a bill eliminating QI protections for officers, as well as all government employees?
At the federal level, the Ending Qualified Immunity Act was introduced in both the U.S. Senate and the House in the current Congress. There thankfully hasn't been a lot of movement in either chamber: H.R. 2847 has 44 co-sponsors (still too many) and S. 1196 has just two.
Interesting that it’s touted as a cost saving measure… yeah, for the city. The cops are just going to be the ones footing the bill. I won’t be surprised to see “malpractice insurance” becoming part of benefits packages in the future if things continue in a direction where qualified immunity is abolished.
You are correct, unfortunately.
This was the inevitable and predictable result of removing Qualified Immunity. Another “I told you so” moment, unfortunately.
Forcing officers to carry their own liability insurance is just another form of a community tax, because it will require agencies to bump pay (if they want to remain competitive in hiring).
Just like in the additional costs passed on to the taxpayers in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually for body cameras, in the end it won’t have any impact on use of force cases.
Why? Because human behavior will always be volatile and unpredictable.
Maybe the next step will be to require all citizens to carry personal liability insurance if they want to move about in public, this way they can be protected from the unpredictable nature of other humans, and we, the people, can be “protected” from them.
Very true, and so much of this was predictable. And you're absolutely correct that the taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook.
Thank you for the coverage and support!
Main point - this liability coverage will require unimaginably high premiums. Unaffordable which will result in even less police officers
I'm also concerned about other potential legal fees and damages the officer would be required to pay out-of-pocket. You're correct: this would harm recruitment efforts and result in an increase in retirements and resignations.
Thanks for your support!
sounds scary on its face... another added cost borne by street cops. some places they buy their own gear (including Kevlar and weapon). police wages, in urban and suburban areas have ballooned to attract or as a lady ditch effort to retain. in those places it's probably affordable.
but two points of consideration offhand.
(1) much police misconduct is in gray areas. where they are acting in good faith to resolve a problem. and only much later, when things are calmed do people find a policy violation. or sometimes the officer is in policy, but a unique circumstance makes the policy solution imperfect. agencies should bear costs of misconduct that arises out of bad policy and training or cases where bad supervision led to the result
(2) ultimately this cost will hit the agency and thus the taxpayer. retention and recruiting are struggling agencies are paying premium to get or retain people. so, even if they push the cost to the cop... the agency then will need to raise wages.
either way the cost hits the agency. jurisdictions should indemnity police with few exceptions for official conduct.
I was watching a segment by New York's Finest: Retired & Unfiltered Podcast on this issue, and they discussed your first point. You (and they) are correct. It's difficult to see how this would work logistically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYYLbeEcwb0
Agree with your second point. I'm not sure they've thought this through.
In June 2020, I was still at my agency. This is the height of the Corona-virus (literally means head cold) and an employee tells my wife that he is unavailable for the rest of the day so his teenage daughter can witness and be a part of the BLM/ George Floyd protests in NY/NJ. (They were the deluded who thought we were experiencing a highly fatal pandemic. They're the clowns who used terms like super spreader events.) We are not outnumbered in strength. Sheepdogs protect the sheep from the wolves. We need to elect and stand behind great Shepards who provide cover for the sheepdogs!
As a teen, I remember one of our classes taking the day off to see Pope Paul II, who was visiting Chicago at the time. How times have changed.
So many people just went along with the narrative that police violence is prevalent. I wonder if that employee has had a change of heart?
Do you miss policing?