Colorado and Qualified Immunity

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read through it. I don't see anything really horrible in it. Some stuff is a little open ended.

Some good ideas like requiring cameras for all cops and requiring they be turned on under certain circumstances. And having a useful penalty for not turning them on.

I don't know how you can effectively enforce the requirement to intervene by a peace officer when observing another peace officer violating someone's civil rights given the highly muddled situation with what the courts consider to be civil rights.
 
OK, I've looked through the link provided by WrongHanded and have a couple questions.

What's the difference between "stop" and "contact"?

"The bill requires a peace officer to have an objective justification a legal basis for making a stop contact ."

******

Reference link:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...hts-litigation-and-qualified-immunity.824429/

Based on Spats' posting in the references link above on the subject of QI, I really don't see where this changes anything about it.


"The bill allows a person who has a constitutional right secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado constitution that is infringed upon by a peace officer to bring a civil action for the violation. A plaintiff who prevails in the lawsuit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, and a defendant in an individual suit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees for defending any frivolous claims. Qualified immunity and a defendant's good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of his or her conduct are not defenses is not a defense to the civil action."


Per Spats' postings, doesn't a person who has their rights violated already have the ability to bring suit against the violating LEO? And isn't this the first thing to be considered (whether or not a right was actually violated) when defending against it?
 
What does is say about limiting qualified immunity?
I snipped a few pieces.

This defines contact. As such definitions go it seems fair and nothing unreasonable.

Screenshot_20200621-090001.png

This snippet eliminates QI as a defense to liability for cases brought under this specific section, which appears to be meaningless unless Colorado courts made up some version of expansive QI in Colorado like the federal courts did.

Screenshot_20200621-090310.png

IMO this is the most important section. What happens when the camera is tampered with or not turned on. I expect this will be the most important provision in the whole law.
Screenshot_20200621-090140.png
 
Oh...I see what "contact" is defined as there, but what about "stop"? Does this mean "arrest" or "detain".

If "contact" also means "nonconsensual" for the purpose of investigating violations of the law, them the person is not free to leave..."detained" or "stopped", correct?
 
Oh...I see what "contact" is defined as there, but what about "stop"? Does this mean "arrest" or "detain".

If "contact" also means "nonconsensual" for the purpose of investigating violations of the law, them the person is not free to leave..."detained" or "stopped", correct?
It appears the new and improved law has deliberately made contact to include detained or stopped, given the consensual or non-consensual language.
 
Oh...I see what "contact" is defined as there, but what about "stop"? Does this mean "arrest" or "detain".

If "contact" also means "nonconsensual" for the purpose of investigating violations of the law, them the person is not free to leave..."detained" or "stopped", correct?

My guess is "contact" sounds less authoritarian.
 
What does it really say about qualified immunity, and how will it influence recruitment, retention, and willingness to respond to calls?
 
What's your point? Our own Frank Ettin specialized in medical insurance law but he is still considered an authority here.
If I wanted advice on medical insurance in California, I would consult Frank Ettin.

If I want to discuss how the legal system works, Frank, boom boom, and Spats would be fine.

If I want to discuss generalities of use of force law in more depth, I would speak to Massad Ayoob, Andrew Branca, or Marty Hays.

If I needed advice on use of force law in my jurisdiction, I would find out whom Branca and Hayes recommend.

I have had more formal classroom training in use of force law t(and in a few other areas) than most attorneys had in law school. Attorneys have asked me questions on the subject.

Spats knows a bit about qualified immunity. Boom boom works in constitutional law. Frank has assisted trainers in teaching use of force law.

The best assessment of the QI aspects of the new Colorado law would come from someone who is knowledgeable of Fourth Amendment issues, lawsuits against the police, and how use of force encounters involving sworn officers really take place.

One would not ask an attorney works in family law, public financial reporting law, international tax law, contract disputes, eminent domain and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, copyrights in photography, or software licensing about how the new Colorado law may affect law enforcement officers and law enforcement practices.

All Mr. French did was read the bill, saying that he assumed it was law.

Most of us can do that for ourselves.

That's my point.
 
What does is say about limiting qualified immunity?


(4) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, A PEACE OFFICER'S EMPLOYER SHALL INDEMNIFY ITS PEACE OFFICERS FOR ANY LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE PEACE OFFICER AND FOR ANY JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT ENTERED AGAINST THE PEACE OFFICER FOR CLAIMS ARISING PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION; EXCEPT THAT, IF THE PEACE OFFICER'S EMPLOYER DETERMINES THAT THE OFFICER DID NOT ACT UPON A GOOD FAITH AND REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE ACTION WAS LAWFUL, THEN THE PEACE OFFICER IS PERSONALLY LIABLE AND SHALL NOT BE INDEMNIFIED BY THE PEACE OFFICER'S EMPLOYER FOR FIVE PERCENT OF THE JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT OR TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHICHEVER IS LESS. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION TO THE CONTRARY, IF THE PEACE OFFICER'S PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS UNCOLLECTIBLE FROM THE PEACE OFFICER, THE PEACE OFFICER'S EMPLOYER OR INSURANCE SHALL SATISFY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT. A PUBLIC ENTITY DOES NOT HAVE TO INDEMNIFY A PEACE OFFICER IF THE PEACE OFFICER WAS CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL VIOLATION FOR THE CONDUCT FROM WHICH THE CLAIM ARISES.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top