Submitted by hau5keeping t3_10rqtz8 in nyc
k1lk1 t1_j6x8ifz wrote
Reply to comment by bkornblith in New York Pays $121 Million for Police Misconduct, the Most in 5 Years by hau5keeping
What we should do is get rid of qualified immunity, and require officers to purchase malpractice insurance, the same as many other types of professions.
Certain officers and certain departments will become extremely expensive to insure, or even uninsurable.
PauI_MuadDib t1_j6xbbn9 wrote
This is why I'm supporting NY Senate Bill 182, which proposes to repeal qualified immunity on the state level. If the police unions are fighting so hard against it I know it's gotta be good lol.
SCOTUS won't overturn federal qualified immunity, so it looks like states will have to do what they gotta do at the local level. Colorado & New Mexico did it. It's NYS' chance now.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j6y3ji4 wrote
That bill is not going to stop the government from paying.
It actually includes an explicit indemnification clause allowing that.
PauI_MuadDib t1_j6y8aoe wrote
If the law really "does nothing" then I wonder why police unions are spending so much time, money and resources fighting tooth and nail to defeat it? 🤔 I think the lady doth protest too much, and this law will do more than naysayers claim.
It's very similar to Colorado's QI repeal and they had it already help curb misconduct. They found out officers were more likely to intervene or report coworkers for misconduct.
A gov employer will indemnify you if you were within the law or policy. Which I think is a fair compromise. An employer will also be less likely to keep a bad employee that's jacking up their insurance premiums and eating into their budget.
Here's two good resources on myths surrounding repealing qualified immunity.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/09/16/policing-qualified-immunity-8-myths/8337916002/.
If it didn't change anything and is a big ole nothing burger then the police unions sure are wasting a lot of money & effort to stop it. I wonder why???
NetQuarterLatte t1_j6ybc93 wrote
You're mistakenly conflating the issues with qualified immunity with the issues with this bill.
This bill having problems doesn't mean that qualified immunity doesn't need revision.
None of the resources you're linking are specific to this bill.
Our legislative in NY is notorious for drafting bills in a half-ass feel good manner, only to discover later that the bill had many flaws.
​
>A gov employer will indemnify you if you were within the law or policy.
Under the NY bill (I don't know about the Colorado bill), as drafted, that's not true on two counts:
- The gov is not allowed to indemnify only if the employee is convicted of a crime related to the conduct.
- The bill prohibits "within the law or policy" as a defense. If the law or policy is determined to be unconstitutional after the fact, the employee is still liable.
PauI_MuadDib t1_j6yscwf wrote
I posted those links because they bring up some of the issues around indemnification. But Colorado's law is the closest to what NY SB 182 is proposing. Except one huge difference is that SB 182 includes law enforcement AND "government officials." But here's some links talking about indemnification, and Colorado's law. It was an issues discussed heavily with their bill too.
The first link is the best one imo. It mentions indemnification and how if an officer is found liable by their gov employer to have violated constitutional rights or policy they won't be fully indemnified. The officer will have to pay a certain percentage. Colorado capped it at 5 percent of the settlement/jury award, not to exceed 25k. The employer will pay part of it, but if law or policy was found to be violated the officer will be personally on the hook for a percentage.
That's why I mentioned it. There are restrictions to being fully indemnified, and that's not unique to Colorado. And the gov employer (police departments in this case) also aren't going to appreciate a hit to their budget or insurance going up.
A cop won't personally be paying a million dollars. But if you're going to risk your employer only paying a percentage of the settlements/award that's still going to be a hit to your wallet. Especially for repeat offenders. 1k here, 3k there, maybe even 5k. That's going to add up and most people don't like losing thousands of dollars. So that might incentivize you to intervene if your coworker is fucking up. And the employer might look at you and say you're eating into the budget, you're making us pay out the wazoo for insurance premiums, I'm having a difficult time justifying why you are worth keeping.
This bill definitely has its limits and won't magically solve every single problem we have. Remember, it can also be changed because right now it's only a proposed bill. This bill could be changed for the better (or the worse lol). That's why it's important to call up our senators and tell them what we do & don't want with SB 182.
It's also limited to state court and deprivation of rights under the state constitution. And we have no idea how judges will end up applying it if and when it's put into action.
It's an albeit small, but good step in the right direction.
I have a feeling the police unions know this, and that's why instead of letting the bill proceed and not waste their breath fighting it, they've teamed up with Hochul to torpedo it. If was really a do-nothing bill then what do they care?
LittleWind_ t1_j6xjct0 wrote
I'm not opposed to having an insurance requirement that limits taxpayer liability when settlements occur. Practically, I don't think it'll play out well, because the industry will charge premiums sufficient to make a profit - which will necessarily mean we're paying more in premiums than we would in settlements.
Everyone on the liability insurance train needs to recognize that the police officers won't pay for it - taxpayers will. In almost every industry that requires malpractice insurance, the cost is paid by the employer.
LostSoulNothing t1_j6xwtvl wrote
How about the city pays the baseline premium (I.e. what would cover a new officer) but if an individual is charged a higher rate (for example because of their disciplinary record or past lawsuits against them) the difference comes out of their pocket? It would both incentivize cops to follow the law and encourage those with the worst track records to quit.
CakeisaDie t1_j6y1832 wrote
It is also a way to actually hold police accountable over multiple jurisdictions without making police talk to each other. I would rather weed out shitty cops via insurance than via deaths.
Ie if you aren't insurable in nyc, you won't get a job in dutchess.
Although there would need to be a balancing game between premiums and payouts to get an insurer on board.
Edit, thought about this alittle more and realized that as tax payers 125m is cheaper. 36,000 police means that the premiums are 3.5k or less, which considering my workers comp 5 per 100, at 65k you end up with a premium of 3.2k and police should get a higher risk profile and earn more than 65k. 125m is cheaper assuming tax payers would fund insurance so the balancing game is a lot harder.
[deleted] t1_j6xb4ol wrote
[deleted]
justpackingheat1 t1_j6zphw8 wrote
But it will at least add incentive for police (and social workers and teachers) to take their jobs more seriously, as they'll be financially on the hook AS WELL
Grass8989 t1_j6xnr9j wrote
If you realistically think the city wouldn’t be paying the bill for “malpractice” insurance and a singular cop making 42k a year will, I have a bridge to sell you.
Sickpup831 t1_j6xin9y wrote
Do we really want this? Think about it. You’re suing, looking for money for damages. Do you want to sue the city worth billions or the individual cop making 45,000 a year? How much money do you think you’re gonna get there?
BillCosbyTesticles t1_j6xsp27 wrote
the money comes from the coffers of whatever insurance company that was dumb enough to insure a cop
Adventurous-Quiet434 t1_j6xv0o6 wrote
They may start out at $45k but after 5 years they are at $85k not including all the benefits like free Metrocard for personal use. If at that tax level you can’t afford liability insurance, you shouldn’t fuck up at your job. I think we should get people here to respond who have been victimized by the pigs in blue and see if they are suing for just for money or for Justice.
stork38 t1_j6y0b1r wrote
You realize if qualified immunity defenses were successful, there'd be LESS money paid out and not more?
numba1cyberwarrior t1_j6zq3fq wrote
Your going to have to increase salaries a lot if that's the case. Insurance is gonna try to jack up rates as much as possible from the get go.
Romas_chicken t1_j79zlfm wrote
Look here’s the thing:
Almost nobody who talks about qualifies immunity knows what qualified immunity actually is, but more to the point, there is one serious difference between the doctor v police example…one is working for the state, the other is (usually) not a government worker and suing a doctor for doesn’t mean you can’t also sue the hospital, in fact that is common.
Qualifies immunity applies to government workers (not just police; teachers, DPW workers, and so forth as well).
They are acting on behalf of the state. This also means the government, which they are acting on behalf of, is who is responsible (and importantly, if the person is acting against the law or policy of the government, then they don’t qualify for said immunity)
For whatever reason this conversation constantly forgets that police departments are very literally a part of the local government. Like how when people get upset about someone getting arrested for something, nobody spends two minutes remembering that the cop doing it isn’t the one making the law or ordinance like on their own.
bkornblith t1_j6x9s8h wrote
Yes that too
bangbangthreehunna t1_j6xarom wrote
NYC doesn't even hold criminals accountable, but you want cops to pay out of pocket for insurance? Were 20+years since 9/11 and the cancer funding is still not corrected, but you want cops to find insurance to cover work related issues? Okay.
mrturdferguson t1_j6xqzgm wrote
"One thing is broken, so everything should stay broken."
bangbangthreehunna t1_j6xtrso wrote
How is cops having QI broken?
LostSoulNothing t1_j6xx9au wrote
Because someone who knows they are unlikely to face any consequences for misconduct is more likely to engage in it
bangbangthreehunna t1_j6xy809 wrote
Explain QI to me outside of reddit karma terms.
LostSoulNothing t1_j6y053p wrote
Basically it means that you can't sue a cop for something they did on a job (even if it was illegal and/or violated department rules). You have to sue the department meaning the taxpayers are on the hook for legal fees and any settlement or judgement instead of the individual officer. In theory the city should then discipline and/or prosecute the officer but in reality this rarely happens or is just a slap on the wrist.
bangbangthreehunna t1_j6y0m8k wrote
Article states you cant lose a lawsuit despite not being outside of dept policy. How do we handle that?
wherearemypaaants t1_j7mvwt8 wrote
Chiming in late to correct you a little here: QI actually means that you can’t sue a cop unless you can show they violated a clearly established law.
In practice, that means you have to find an identical (and I really do mean identical) case where the court decided the cops violated someone’s constitutional rights so you can show the court in your case, “see, the cops should have known stealing my rare coin collection while serving an unrelated search warrant was unconstitutional*.”
*a real case that really happened. The cops were granted QI bc apparently it wasn’t clearly established that literal theft is unconstitutional.
[deleted] t1_j75dcih wrote
[removed]
phoenixmatrix t1_j6y16hm wrote
>and require officers to purchase malpractice insurance
This IMO is the biggest one. And if they then just go "Ok but we just wont' arrest anyone if its too risky" then fire them, like you would anyone who refuses to do their job.
stork38 t1_j6yxq35 wrote
Can anyone provide a name of these mythical insurance companies that write policies for police officers?
phoenixmatrix t1_j6yy0qe wrote
I doubt there's a mass market for these right now since they don't need them.
But given a big enough dollar amount, you can get an insurance company to write you a policy for almost anything. If I want insurance to handle the case where I would get pregnant (which is biologically impossible for me, born with only male parts and all), someone somewhere will underwrite it for the right price.
stork38 t1_j6zdhc9 wrote
My guy, if they existed they'd be used. Do you think some small town with 6 cops wants to keep lawyers on staff? No, they'd rather pay insurance but such a thing would never exist or even be reasonably priced.
phoenixmatrix t1_j6zjr6d wrote
It wouldn't be cost effective for anyone if the town paid for it, because the person who can cause trouble isn't the one footing the bill. That small town absolutely could find someone to underwrite it, it would just be cost prohibitive. If the cops themselves had to pay for it on their own, it would STILL be cost prohibitive (at first), but they wouldn't have a choice.
I've had to get some insurance for pretty non-standard stuff in the past. You can't just sign up online, and need to talk with an actual human and negotiate, but it can be done. And if the market gets big enough, then it would become "standard" insurance over time.
stork38 t1_j6zn395 wrote
Very reasonable to have cops who make $35k paying $20k for insurance. Great idea!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments