It could be in place for less critical issues like trespassing on other properties during a stakeout. As long as there's no permanent damage and they run the risk of encountering poison ivy.
@@ehsnils Boi, if it's part of regular procedure, that's what 'thrown out' is for. Cases that are obvious bullshit get thrown out. Throwing out cases that have merit simply because a cop 'didn't know' that their clearly-illegal behavior was clearly-illegal? Nuh-uh. We didn't need qualified immunity to begin with. We had/have other ways to stop frivolous cases at the door.
They can buy liability protection just like a medical professional a doctor or nurse that way if they abused their power and their corrupt their insurance will go up and they won't be able to be a cop anymore
Won't happen. You will not have police if you force that. If you do that, you better be trusting of your friendly neighborhood warlord. Maybe offer him your wife or daughter as down payment?
City police departments already insure their officers. It's called "False Arrest Ins." And, the policy covers more than false arrests. They have the aid of their F/A Ins,, Union, City Law Firm and prosecutors, and a system the city uses to avoid unwanted lawsuits. The issuance of "Qualified Immunity and Asset Forfeiture" prior to a conviction allows the police department to be bulletproof. Also, major reforms must be added to either stop or curtail plainclothes drug detectives' and their investigations. That is simply the greatest amount of corruption resides.
@@dagann1 Yep. What will happen though, is that instead of hiding bad cops (so they can be used to harass political opponents and such) they'll have to curb their behavior or be fired as their insurance rates will skyrocket. Much like commercial driver insurance works if you have to drive for work.
@@july8xx Absolutely wrong. How many bad cops arrest people for lawful activity? Filming in public is one of them. Filming the cops in their active duty. People and the cops don’t like it. A cop gets upset and makes the false arrest. Then the bad cop issues a list of offensives on the arrest. Then the person has to prove innocent in court. This would stop that nonsense.
@@Foolish188 The 'not reasonable' part strikes me as different in how the US approaches things compared to what I'm used to. Not so much for the law itself, but more how it is applied by judges. Something being 'reasonable' comes into judgements quite a lot here. If for instance you knowingly exploit a loophole in a law a judge here might still convict you because you could reasonably know you where actting against the intention of the law. And conversely you might not get convicted if for some reason it was 'reasonable' to break the law, the standard example being ignoring a red traffic light to make way for an ambulance to pass. In cases like that a verdict usually explicitly states you did indeed break the law but you won't be convicted because it was reasonable to do so in those circumstance. I don't see 'judgement' like that very often in US cases I hear about...
@@foobar8894 Unfortunately, even though even though questions of "reasonableness" almost always require factual determinations, they are too often treated as being solely matters of law. If police had to worry about whether a jury would agree with their claims that they acted "reasonably", that would provide a strong incentive for them to actually behave in a reasonable fashion, rather than pushing the limits of what a judge could be convinced was "reasonable".
This needs to be nation wide. It might be the beginning of trust with government workers if this were to happen. When the employee's know they can be held accountable, will make them think again before crossing the moral line.
My guess is the supreme court really believed the police would do the right thing instead of taking advantage of the potential evil power qualified immunity would give them. When Singapore became a country the first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew could see the potential problem of corrupt politicians and government officials. Hence he made very stiff penalties for such. In turn the country has a huge amount of tax money to improve the country. People wonder how it went from a mud hole to one of the richest countries in the world. Also, they beat the crap out of people with canes that are convicted of crimes. There is very little crime.
@@davidlangford9107 True. However the people that live there, live well. People like living there. Any Singaporean with a passport can visit just about any country they like. I asked Singaporean taxi drivers if they would visit the US. The answer was always; "What for?" On the other hand, if you ask a taxi driver in the Philippines if he would like to visit the US, the answer is usually; "It is my dream."
moral line? Who gets to decide what that line is? Following "moral" lines is how we got here to begin with. Lets try to get them to follow "lawful" lines.
@@edwardmiessner6502 Yes, they will have to amend the law to require departments to surrender any assets they receive from any forfeiture, whether state or,federal.
@@kylebritt1225 Wait, so one union is good but another is bad? I personally don't believe any job that is paid through taxes should be unionized but trying to say one union is good while another is bad is at best disingenuous. They all serve the same purpose.
I am a contractor in the state of Michigan. Every job I go out on I run a certain risk of being sued if I do my job improperly and the customer sustains damages. I also have to carry my own insurance. I am quite certain if I burn down a few houses here and there my insurance would skyrocket to the point that I would not be able to pay it. That would put me out of business and rightfully so.
If you have to worry about being sued for doing your job then there is something wrong with the way you are doing your job...or there is something wrong with what is accepted in your job
Your job inherently puts you in conflict with most of the people you meet during fulfilling the duties of your job. Do you not see how they could be destroyed with frivolous lawsuits? Even if you’re 100% in the right, 500 lawsuits could still bankrupt you.
@@mhammer3186 medical professionals are also subjected to frivolous lawsuits. Do you think they should get qualified immunity too? Maybe force cops to carry and pay for some form of malpractice insurance? Your arguments are really not valid. The police are running rampant in this country and feel they are above the law because they have qualified immunity. If they didn’t have that, perhaps they’d consider doing their jobs properly and to the best of their ability? And stop bullying the public and violating the people’s rights! Qualified immunity needs to go. It’s giving police, judges, prosecutors, and elected officials a free pass to do whatever they want.
@@mhammer3186 If you didn't learn anything from the first lawsuit then you earn the next 500. If they did their jobs properly then there wouldn't be any "successful" lawsuits.
@@azadventurefamily doctors also can pay between 12k to 50k for malpractice insurance. Whereas police average salary is between 50-60k, if insurance cost about the same for police (which there’s actually less deaths to police than there are to medical malpractice) then you’d be talking 20% of your take home pay would go to insurance.
@Jhowemca how much do want to bet that look at the states where it has been abolished and see if police behavior has improved any at all here is a hint they haven't.
Yep it was US rep justin Amash from Michigan who first introduced the end qualified immunity bill to the house at the end of may last yr, and I cant remember the female reps name who resubmitted it last month
Qualified immunity started out as a good thing. It protected cops from mistakes made on the job. You can not have a police officer scared to lose his house because he makes a mistake. They took it far further than it was ever meant to be used by protecting cops knowingly breaking the law. Now they will cry that it is not fair.
Have you ever worked in a job where you were sure you did everything 100% correctly only to be told by your supervisor, boss, client, critic it wasn't right? Sadly, It's always about perspective.
@@howardhulljr that is why the court is so important, for the truth to be found. Do you think doctors should have qualified immunity as well? Everybody makes mistakes but sometimes things are not mistakes. It is not the “right” of a cop to be a cop, it’s an honorable job they must earn and maintain. I believe their are good cops suffering under this law because they are forced to work with bad cops and can’t do anything about it. This will make the good cops shine.
@@jonguyton1 it was never a good thing, it being a mistake isnt good enough and thats what the courts are for and there is never a good reason to usurp that
"Defenders of qualified immunity warn that restricting or abolishing it would have a chilling effect on policing, forcing officers to constantly worry about being sued for doing their jobs." If you don't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. Isn't that what they tell us all the time?
Steve walks warily down the street With his grin pulled way down low Ain't no sound but the sound of his feet Law books ready to go Are you ready hey are you ready for this? Are you hanging on the edge of your seat? Another one bites the dust And another one gone and another one gone
Mr. Lehto do you think if enough states abolishe qualified immunity, the Supreme Court will address it, or is it something that were going to have to push for in every state Individually?
Well it cost a lot to get in the front of the supreme court over $100,000.00 dollars so I'd push your local level and state level an push ... tell your friends get them to help push kinda like that broken down car you see halfway in the road half way off with a couple of guys leaned into it .... just gotta keep pushing till you get it straightened out hahaha
The states are going to have to go it themselves for a while... unless someone pushes it to the USSC, it will have to be done in the majority of states before triggering USSC action. The other problem also being that since QA was established by the USSC, it's going to be very reluctant to reverse it.
Exactly. Even if you have evidence of a cop committing a crime it is qualified immunity that prevents the courts from even looking at the evidence to begin with.
It would be fine to say officials cannot be held personally liable for actions which they reasonably believe to be within their authority *according to both the letter and spirit of the law*, if such reasonableness were recognized as a question of fact to be determined by a jury. If a group of twelve people agree that a government agent could not have reasonably believed his action was consistent with the spirit of the law, the official should not be regarded as having been acting in his official capacity, and thus not be entitled to protection on account of his position.
You're a good influence Steve. Like Glen Kirchner says, justice matters. We need a more level playing field. Like the way oppression begets rebellion, absolute immunity is absolute power and begets corruption. I trust everyone but I try to always cut the deck.
I feel that qualified immunity has its place. However it should not protect you from abuse of the law, gross negligence or clearly unethical behavior. Requiring precedent is a ridiculous catch 22.
What's needed is recognition of some simple principles, such as the fact that unlawful actions cannot, by definition, form part of a policeman's lawful duties, and a policeman can thus not reasonably believe that acts which he would believe to be unlawful form part of his duties.
@Black Stone I'm not sure what your point is. The best I can figure your analogy would an analogy with the way qualified immunity is abused to protect cops who invent new ways to infringe people's rights. Never mind that if e.g. a cop is trying to make a suspect believe that they have no choice but to confess, such an action would constitute deliberate infringement of the suspect's rights, no matter how novel the technique.
@Black Stone A statute may authorize police officers to perform certain actions in the line of duty which would be unlawful *in other circumstances*. An officer who performs such actions *would not be breaking the law*. If the law says that an officer may do something if he reasonably believes doing so would be necessary to save someone's life, the officer should not be subject to liability because the belief is mistaken, or even if it falls short of being reasonable, so long as it is genuine and not patently unreasonable. A plaintiff, however, who can provide prima facie evidence that the claimed belief was not genuine should be entitled to bring suit on that basis even if the belief, if genuine, would have been reasonable.
That would be a feat, huh? But in the US, we have the "fun house mirror effect." Good ideas, they bounce around the fun house off all the mirrors, get flipped around, distorted, turned inside out, and each state returns a more distorted law than the one before it ; )
Thank you Steve, for explaining many of the intricacies of our legal system. I've learned a lot from watching your show, and I look forward to learning more.
From my experience a cop's due diligence is to know basic law in detail! Basic law would be the BILL OF RIGHTS!!! Otherwise how can cops enforce laws they don't even know! Cop's are not hero's just because they wear a gun and badge! Because of qualified immunity cop's turn into tyrants! We must be able to hold them accountable!!!
Steve Lehto, you have such a great mind. I love the way you explain the law, it’s so common sense without weird drama. I will add that I do also think this will be a good thing, everybody needs accountability for their actions. I tend to wonder if congress won’t address the bill on this because a lot of them could be held accountable for their crimes. People need the right to their day in court because this is what all other countries envied (yes past term) about America. Truth, justice, the American way!
it was an okay idea.... to rid them of frivolous lawsuits. it has been stretched to a point where police are above the law at all times. it has been taken to an absurd level.
Same with Civil Asset Forfeiture. Like great idea in principle. But abused to all hell and back. Either limit them to prevent abuse (I don't think that's possible) or get rid of them.
First off. I want to say / Thank you for sharing your expertise on the law's here in the USA. You're very interesting in the way you're presenting this information. My wife and I both watch your videos on tv. And you are great to watch. God Bless
Dear heavenly father, please bless all the children in the world. Please help me be kind to others. Please lord, please, please, abolish qualified immunity in Pennsylvania as well. Amen!!!
If a court removes an officer’s qualified immunity after a guilty verdict for violating the rights of a citizen, does the cop actually pay the judgment?
"Nothing happens until it happens once" for the supreme court to make a judgment , .......so why do we pay this current supreme court if it won't make a judgment that has not been made before but clearly falls within the constitutional rights of one of the two parties bringing the case to this court. ??? Fire them all..get a new one .
Thanks for fighting the good fight Steve. It’s amazing that you’d have any opposition - who actually got the nuts to stand up and champion for legal theft .
A friend of mine recently quit his job in law enforcement in part because of the impending end to qualified immunity. Although I believe that he had little to fear as an honest conscientious cop, he and many of his fellow officers fear being hung out to dry by politicians in case they get involved in a highly-publicized incident.
It will cut both ways. While it is important to hold those who do wrong accountable, we live in a very litigious society, some good people will be caught up in a bad situation when a frivolous lawsuit is filed, justified or not.
Inevitably - but there will be a legal remedy for it. There is and has been no legal remedy for people harmed by bad actors shielded by Qualified Immunity.
This reminds me of when they wanted to pass the conceal carry law here in Texas and people said if they did it would be like the wild west again, and people with the CHL would be killing each other in the streets, it never happened. Same thing when they allowed Open carry, but so far no one has drawn down on me yet....luckily for them.
Thank you for quoting Cato Institute on this, they have been champions of striking down Qualified Immunity for many years and deserve our support. QA should not be needed for the vast majority of officers doing their job properly. Time to see a "chilling effect" on abuse of police power.
I'm curious. When lawsuits are won in NM will people be able to use those cases in other states as examples of existing precedent of qualified immunity?
@@9753flyer Great question indeed. But I wonder about your answer. Why would it matter where precedent occurs? For instance, and this may seem a rather shallow example, but what about vehicles that are exhibiting a certain problem before a manufacturer recall? If a person in one state wins a settlement using all the legal resources and evidence against the manufacturer, why would that info and judgement not be available in another state? The complaints against the car manufacturer would gain momentum individually until the manufacturer made a general recall. And, each individual complaint that had an outcome, pro or con, would or could be used for future litigation. Whether it was before or after the recall. I realize Q.I. is different than pre-recall litigation, and the ramifications of each has some variance. But precedence is fluid and it is sometimes stretched to support a defense or offense. A judge would decide. In The People vs Chauvin, the judge early on threw out an attempt by the prosecution to use precedent from an Iillinois decision. I don't recall the issue, just the action. What do you think? ✌
@@davidhunt7249 States are independent. In State v State matters, each state might as well be another country, legally, which means each state is under zero obligation to consider another states laws being applicable within it's borders. (see below for more) Except in cases where federal law is the determining or an overriding factor, each state is legally considered a sovereign entity legally. The only exceptions are as stated when Federal law overrides, which is what makes Federal precedent valid, and/or when the states make reciprocal agreements between themselves. A good example is concealed weapons permits. I live in AZ where we have concealed weapons carry permitting, but that permit is invalid in other states unless the 'other' state and AZ have entered into an agreement to honor each others permits. Automobiles are a sticky area, since they are federally regulated especially in safety areas and often a defect in a line of vehicles affects more than just that one state where a case happened to be brought. I don't have all the details (perhaps Steve can give us insight here as he has much more legal exp. than I do) but I seem to remember some odd laws existing in the arena of vehicles manufacture and sales that put limits and framework on how that particular 'niche market' is handled. The recall also changes things, since the recall itself is evidence of wrongdoing and it cannot be argued that any wrongdoing only affected a single or low number of states, unless the manufacturer could show that that vehicle or part of it was oly sold in a specific state or group of states. Also, since vehicles can and often are moved between states, it's a further quagmire.. Not sure if I helped or hindered there and I might be 100% wrong. I agree with the judge not allowing a precedent argument from Illinois to be used... the incident did not happen there, nor is it Illinois law that applies. States should be independent.. I personally don't want some of the crazy Texas laws I personally know about, being the law of the land in AZ where I live. Allowing state to state precedent would basically allow someone in NY who is involved in litigation or charged with a crime to claim that since a California law says 'whatever it was' is legal, to override New York law even though the case is in NY and has nothing to do with California, simply by invoking precedent, even if the voters of New York put different laws in place than California has.... If that's the case, who decides what... why have state law at all if it can be overridden at will by another state? You would be left with only 1 final law, the Federal law. Example: State 1 allows Recreational MJ State 2 does not These laws in these 2 states were voted on by the residents of those states, i.e. will of the people in regards to their own state. John Doe gets arrested in state 2 for MJ possession and makes the argument in court that he is innocent because state 1 allows possession of MJ for recreational use How is that representative of the will of the people in state 2 where the infraction occurred?? Precedent is fluid, which is why the Judge has the final decision and can in some cases allow it, but if he does, he takes a risk of opening up a good chance for it to be overturned on appeal. BTW - in regards to the auto thing. You mention INFO and Judgement - the INFO (Facts) from a case out of state can be used, so long as they meet the local courts requirements for evidence and are clearly relevant/applicable to the case at hand, but the judgement is the part that is considered precedent and cannot in most cases. sorry for the tldr
@@9753flyer That was fantastic! Thank you. I can see where I had the right idea about certain aspects, but failed miserably in most other aspects. 😅 From CO. 👍✌ I think I'll stay tuned.
When I was an accountant/Tax preparer I was held accountable for my knowledge of tax law. If I knowingly filed a false return I could have been charged with fraud, but if I unknowingly filed a false return I could have been charged with gross negligence with a penalty of 1 year in jail and a $100,000 fine, because as a professional I should know the laws, PERIOD! I feel that those who are sanctioned with enforcing the law should be held to the same accountability with knowing the laws that that they enforce.
In four Federal lawsuits, and a single suit in Texas State Court I have overcome "qualified immunity" claims each and every time. I am glad to hear of the end of this charade in three states and hope the rest will follow suit. This "policy" made out of whole cloth by SCOTUS was and is illegally(criminally) Unconstitutional. SCOTUS was never given the power to decide what is and isn't Constitutional, much less create law.
Former Rep. Justin Amash (Libertarian-Mich.) unveiled the first bill to end qualified immunity for all public officials in June 2020. It never received a vote.
Glad to see a end to it. Never could understand how they got it in the first place. I kept saying no need to defund the police just take the immunity so they can be held liable for their actions. I hope NC is coming soon .
@@janejones8672 I know several police and highway patrol that are great honest people but I have also meet a few power crazed ones that needed to be put in their place. Is easy to see the Supreme Court had no business creating this
