Judges and prosecutors do not have qualified immunity. They have judicial immunity which prevents them from being sued over the result of their decisions in cases. Also, there is already a way around this already in cases of miscarriages of the justice system by filing a case over getting a re-trial. Appeals deal with this too. It is my understanding that judicial immunity is narrower than qualified immunity as it does not protect judges from every action they take on the job like qualified immunity does, just the ones directly involved with decisions about the case. It makes sense that you cannot personally sue a judge just because they decided against you. Judicial immunity is good and necessary.
@@joshnabours9102 I get what you’re saying. But you are giving examples were prosecutors and judges have acted faithfully and within the confines of the law and of course they cannot be sued for that. Your first example you stated that judicial immunity prevents them from being sued over the result of their decision in cases. The example I am looking at is when district attorneys withhold evidence that would clear a person and it is later found out that they withheld this evidence they are not arrested for evidence tampering or violating that individuals constitutional rights. We have many cases where judges and prosecutors act beyond the scope of their authority and are not held responsible. Getting rid of their judicial immunity would also cut down on judicial activism or what is commonly known as “Lawfare”. A good example of this is the district attorney in Los Angeles whose actions are so egregious he is on the verge of being fired. He is using his political position to forward his political agenda knowing full well that he has immunity.
@@whtpride71 im going to sue my toothbrush company when they lift qualified immunity on the ada. it says its medium but it feels soft to me. the ada approved that nonsense
Bad Cops CAN ruin a person's entire life or livelihood. 🚔 I was arrested on false charges 03/21/2012. The cops Officer John Keefe Orlando.gov lied multiple times. He screamed insults at me. The Orlando PD internal affairs unit even said later; we do not deny or dispute any of it, we know the officers said & did those things. 🗂. My entire case was dismissed, no prosecution. I went to 6 law firms. None would assist me with a civil action. 2 firms said openly, I had a valid case but they did not want to risk deals with the city.
For the NYPD Commissioner to casually use the United States Marine Corp as an example of heirarchy structure is Prima Facia evidence of just how militarized the police have become.
Moreover, the NYPD Commissioner fails to realize that a civilian does have the final say-so about military adjudication, that is the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.
@@smilebehappy6102 Are you seeing a lot of videos where only 2 cops are arresting someone? You need to read Radley Balko's Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces." You'll get a better understanding of why more passive policing could be just what we need.
Service branches typically don't protect service members that made extremely poor decisions like police departments. That is because leaders can and do get held accountable. That is the problem with police departments. Their leadership doesn't get held accountable for protecting their officers that make extremely poor decisions. Then they are rewarded with a pension that puts a financial strain on local tax payers.
Those officers whose intent it was to be a public servant will quit after the 3rd nuisance lawsuit. We won't have anyone willing to do the job. Just another step toward more centralized government control. Goodbye DC, hello Moscow ...
Cops couldn't care less about qualified immunity because they won't be paying a dime of their own money for any lawsuit regardless of whether they have qualified immunity or not. This new law will be "invisible" to the average NYPD cop.
I heard something else that is concerning to me. The mayors office took over issuing press passes from the NYPD. I thought, freedom of the press, was a first amendment right. That any citizen, could be the press.
I would expect that New York City press passes grant access to official city press conferences, and almost nothing else. That way you can limit the size of room that you need when doing the press conference, and limit the number of participants enough to be realistically able to take questions. All of these things can _technically_ be done with thousands, or even millions of people, but the complexity required to actually do so is completely unjustified for the value provided to the conference by that scale.
@@Milesco Been in LE for 37 and years and know numerous officers who have been denied Qualified Immunity. Stop making it sound like yuo cnat sue officers and all they have to do is hide behind it.
Been an officer 37 years and know several officers who have been denied Qualified Immunity. Stop making it sound like its a blanket that prevents Law Enforcement officers from being sued
I disagree. Qualified immunity does serve a purpose. Can you imagine if any nutbag out there that has ANY encounter with an officer can sue the officer personally? This opens the flood gates for retaliatory suits by criminals that have been arrested and convicted, by organized crime and gangs, and pretty much any one that is upset by the police which is wholly untenable. Think about calling 911 and hearing: "Thank you for calling 911. All of our officers are in court today, please hold and the next available officer will be with you. Or, if you'd like to leave a message press 1." However there should 100% be an objective civilian review board empowered to evaluates police misconduct and given authority to strip QI from officers should they decide it is warranted. From there it should go to the courts where a judge would legally rule to remove QI, much like an appeals court overturning a lower court ruling. Of course this necessitates oversight for the review board in order to ensure objectivity. I also think officers should have to be licensed like lawyers and doctors and officers found guilty of breaking the law should lose that license. But that's a different discussion.
EXACTLY 💯 It started back in JIM CROW time and when JIM CROW left QUALIFIED IMMUNITY should have left too. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY is way overdue and should have never exist. 🙄
@@peterrivney552 Yes this will make them more accountable. But I fear that the opposite will happen. With frivolous lawsuits, unjust lawsuits will bankrupt the good officers and the good ones will leave to protect their families. You'll be left with only bad ones. I also think that they will force that the city cover these lawsuits as part of their union contract.
Every major city that has thrown its police under the bus has reaped off the charts crime as the police then pull back and pretend to get involved. Its common sense that if you don't have the cops backs they won't have yours. Go after individual bad cops not all of your cops who are just doing their jobs.
The reason they removed the ability to discipline officers from the commissioner is because it was ineffective. Too many officers have long records of complaints and suffer no discipline.
Are yo aware of how many bogus complaints are filed against police officers every day? I was a LEO for 25 years and the majority of complaints are total BS, just someone wanting to get out of a ticket.
@@ramecodiesel8271 After working tech support, I can definitely see that happening. I'd work my butt off for a customer, they'd be super pleased and seemingly worship the ground I tread on. Then they'll spout the most vile lies to my employer so they can get out of paying $20. Some would even do it while I'm still there. No good deed goes unpunished!
@@ramecodiesel8271 What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
@@ramecodiesel8271 Dude do you know how hard it is in a lot of areas it is just to get a complaint form? By law, municipalities are supposed to have them printed and available in lobby areas. Most don't do that, there is literally channels here on youtube that go around to different areas and see how hard it is to get a complaint form. It's actually the opposite, if a cop gets 5 complaints in a year, realistically he would probably get 3 times that if cops didn't harass and threaten people trying to get complaint forms.
The problem with the police commissioner being the ultimate disciplinary for cops is he is biased and at some level dependent on those he rules over. Needing certain performance characteristics from his troops he may choose leniency in some cases. He also has deep professional relationships with some of them. And integrity is not a given, we hope it's there, but sometimes it's not.
They don't. There is a difference between civil and criminal law. QI is a civil law concept regarding liability. LE has never been exempt from criminal conduct.
Oh I’m aware, but the concept that they are exempt from civil responsibility for their actions implies that it isn’t reasonable or fair that they be judged for civil transgressions in a court of law. As officers of the court, how can one swear to uphold and defend a system that they aren’t fully responsible to?
@@mrlt1151 You are mistaken. If convicted of a crime, they have always been civilly liable. QI only applies when they are performing duties in compliance with the established policies and procedures of their agencies, which will tend to change over time to comply with new legislative and case law. That is the qualified part of the term.
@@gilbertpinfold Which assumes that the policies of the agency are just, that the agency’s reading of current case law is airtight and hasn’t taken liberties, and effectively puts the judgment of that agency beyond question. The victim’s search for justice is left at the mercy of the officer’s peers. If they decide not to charge, game over. Agency policies aren’t law. Plenty of other citizens have been found liable for damages without being charged with or even accused of committing a crime. Others have been changed, and acquitted in a criminal trial only to lose a judgment in civil court.
QI does not exempt police from criminal law, just protects them from being sued in civil court. Police officers have only "unhappy customers" by definition. By definition every interaction they have is confrontational, they don't sell you anything all they do is fine, arrest or otherwise inconvenience the individuals they interact with. Now each and every one of them will be allowed to harass that officer with a a civil lawsuit. That's not going to end well. It won't stop abuses, police abuse poor people and poor people don't have neither the money nor the time to spend years in civil litigation only to get revenge. Because that's all you can get, cops aren't rich you ain't getting millions in fact in most cases you won't get shit. By the time the case is done the cop will be bankrupt from legal fees, you ain't seeing a dime. So what's the point? Well the people who will love this will be rich Karens and their lawyers. Rich, entitled obnoxious people will sue, even if they are in the wrong. They can afford it. The cops won't though. As I said by the time it's all said and done a civil lawsuit can bankrupt you and even if you win the damage is done. You ain't getting your house back, someone else lives in it now. And the wife and kids aren't coming back either. Your life is ruined and Karen considers a couple hundred grand to make that happen money well spent. That's teach you and your peers to not mess with your betters...
As a career LEO, I support the elimination of qualified immunity. I have dealt with way to many undesirable officers that abuse their authority, then hide behing Q.I.
@@captainhargrove113 no, law abiding citizen that was assaulted, illegally searched and siezed and arrested by a state trooper for speeding and the other officers that showed up claiming to be good cops backed him up. But your reply would be the typical response from a career LEO to assume I was a criminal and guilty before presuming innocence and a victim of police brutality. Good job officer!
@@Sovereign-Individual I have referred 23 Police Officers for C.I., 2 to the Feds for CRV. Ive done my job in a professional manner and will until my retirement. You made an assumption I have never charged an officer, you are absolutly correct. That is the role of I.A., but you knew that, surely you filed a CRV against that trooper right, you have been interviewed by OPR ,had a day in court and won the case, correct? Always the victim, never the offender. Stop whining, take the job, fix the issues, or is there a felony assault holding you back?
@UCoiwegoT8ycvGg3kvVQRmkw lol, captain doesn't know the difference between traffic court and criminal court. Doesn't surprise me since police don't know the law. This is just more evidence that ACAB and serve and protect themselves by following the thin blue line of the brotherhood. Poor captain hates my free speech and even more so hates accountability. Move along, captain organized crime.
They exploited it..now it's gone. Their number 1 reason for acting the way they do is now gone. "We can't have anything nice...." Yep, and y'all made that happen.
They should be grateful that they opted for this, instead of the more ludicrous option of defunding them and potentially putting too many out of work entirely during a pandemic.
@@neilkurzman4907 I am not a conservative but do take the phrase at face value. It is removing money from the budget, as far as I can figure. My point was getting rid of _Qualified Immunity_ and _Civil Asset Forfeiture_ would be far more productive than simply lowering the budget all willy-nilly without stipulations, but protestors, for whatever reason, aren't demanding that but are in a position to possibly get those concessions.
@@neilkurzman4907 Obama didn't because he couldn't. Now we have a Supreme Court running scared due to the threats against it and all three branches of Government being controlled by the same leftist lunatic SOCIALISTS> No run away Commie Traitor, I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year.
Steve, one NY cop like many had over 20 complaints, and 7 persons paid a Settlement. Just last year he resigned due to another incident that would of led to his conviction.
Many criminals like to file complaints against cops who aggressively do their jobs. You rarely see complaints against cops who hide out and ignore crime
@@denniskowalski8442 Yes we do see these complaints many times. But the people who have done nothing wrong are the ones you need to think about. Like the 17 old walking home after work. That was beaten and arrested for nothing more then walking home. I have had a cop stop me and ask me how long I was in a store shopping. I told them it's not the government business on what I shop for and how long it takes. I told her to mind her own business. I really don't care why she was asking. Her business isn't my business.
@@denniskowalski8442 How about Thomas Valva Sr? He was an abusive father. His son had the TEMERITY to be a bed wetter. He and his shield bunny GF (not the mother, know people who know her) would punish him by making him sleep in his WET CLOTHES in an insulated garage. Teachers reported this. Mother reported this. CPS showed up with 2 Suffolk County police officers ONCE. Spent less than 5 mintues in there and were quickly ushered out by the cops (Not his squad mates as he was NYPD, but his cop buddies). In a hearing in the divorce? Mother brought this up. JUDGE actually told her, basically, "Shut up. I dont want to hear about that right now! I dont care! Custody will be handled in JULY AND NO SOONER! NO MATTER WHAT! Next comment about it will be contempt!". That was Nov. Hearing was in July. Tommy Jr? Died of exposure being punished in that garage JANUARY. Sr charged weeks later. That was January 2020. Sr RESIGNED from the NYPD in November. In the TEN months between the death and resignation? NYPD did not even initiate an investigation into an officer INDICTED on a Manslaughter case. He resigned to AVOID the investigation by NYPD at some point.
@@rimc8783 I agree but try to think of all sides not just wronged people.. I also believe that instances like those should result in serious punishment for officers who abuse the law or common sense. I do not believe in painting cops with a broad brush as corrupt. I think most are decent and courageous heros who protect us. Painting them with a broad brush is similar to racism that paints whole racial communities because of some bad seeds. Those in charge of weeding out bad cops need to be held accountable and punished if they don't act on obvious evidence rather then generally weakening the power of police to fight criminal elements.
Qualified immunity should only cover acts performed consistent with the law and their departmental guidelines. Stealing from someone should clearly be unprotected.
The conduct of the NYPD and its officers has been pretty appalling for the last 10-20 years. The only thing surprising about this is that it took so long for the council to do.
@@williamtopping You are speaking my language. People gasp how many times a victim is getting sued by a bad guy. The cost of protecting one self on being sued is costly and ugly. Of course bad cops get fired and sued. Though, the good cops are loosing out. There are lawyers that we'll see this as a gold nuggets. I like the idea to relook at this in 12 months. We'll see how it affects everyone.
@@williamtopping I would rather that a thousand criminals be freed than a single innocent be harmed by something that a bunch of statist fools in black robes invented outta thin air to help their fellow statists. And as for being mugged or broken into, an armed society is a polite society. You can look at the criminals own thoughts about who they target and who they avoid.
@@lightweight1974 Hey there. Thanks for responding. I really hate to admit this... But your right mostly. As a Army MP, I've seen some bad leaders get promoted or transferred. Especially as a young Soldier. The only way I've observed and done to combat this complacency, is to promote those good potential leaders. Takes a lot of leadership and time. And setting the standards as an example. (Ohhh could I tell you some stories. I never transferred my "ass&trash" MP Soldiers to someone else. Either Guided them to fix themselves or they got kicked out of the Army.) Oops...Sorry for the long story, HooAh!
When police raid and destroy a house, causing ten, twenty, or 50 thousand dollars damage, and then find out they were at the wrong address, it is a crime when it happens, and another crime when the police arent liable for the costs, and when insurance companies deny claims that are caused by police. I would love to see that situation happen to the lawmakers and insurance company execs who created the injustice.
Maybe this is the only way to get it back in front of the supreme Court in any meaningful way. When the biggest city in the U.S. says, "this is out of control, we're going to put a stop to it." Maybe, just maybe the supreme Court will finally take it seriously and take a real look at it.
Well it's better than cops having a "carte blanche" with no rules to follow or entity to answer to with current immunity laws. I am in Canada and cops are not immune from being sued or charged for their actions. We also have several independent provincial investigation units. I am in New Brunswick we are one of the smallest and poorest province/state. Even us we ask the Quebec investigators to investigate any possible major crimes by a police officer. We do not have hundreds of lawsuits. It will be some growing pains. Probably lots of lawsuits at the start for good and bad reasons which will change behaviors of the police officers and also complaints once the dust settles in a few years.
No. They buy liability insurance just like every architect and engineer has to have. Their premium will be determined by the number of claims they file against the insurance.
The City never had Qualified Immunity. People would sue the City instead of the police Officer. Without qualified immunity, the Police Officer can be held personally responsible and sued. Instead of the City. Would make the city have to pay less money out for lawsuits. Not more.
@@buckhorncortez I whole heartedly agree with you. Have heard juries award tens of thousands of dollars for rights violations by LEO. They should be bonded for a minimum of a $100000 to start. Rotten LEO with multiple complaints and/or charges should hold a million dollar policy or more. The people of that city should not be on the hook for any employees violations. OR take their retirements. 😄 Punish the offender, not the people who pay their wage.
Oh, he'll definitely do it and if not him, the union heads will. With the nonsensical ruling under Brownback v King and an upcoming ruling that I expect under Oliva v Navin * all state and local officers under a joint task force with the feds will be basically untouchable. And neither Congress nor the Supremes will ever fix this! * Probably a denial of cert accompanied by an opinion signed by a majority that the Fifth Circuit is 100% correct.
When I first read this story I felt that if they were ending qualified Immunity for NYPD Officers then they should have ended it for ALL New York City employees.
This a great day in legislative history. No government official or government entity at any level should not have any more rights than the citizenry that they are serving. Thanks for another good video Steve.
Ebr-fan - All this does it put taxpayers on the hook for settlements. It will have no effect whatsoever until police have to personally pay out of pocket.
@@billb3374 - Under the NYPD police union contract, the city is required to pay all lawsuits against any police officer. No cop will ever shell out a dime for any lawsuit because of this new city ordinance. All this does is put the city (taxpayers) on the hook to pay out more in settlements. Steve Lehto really needs to slow the fuck down and stop glossing over germane details like this.
@@billb3374 - You clearly don't understand. They got rid of qualified immunity so they can pay out MORE settlements (all funded by NY taxpayers). They WANT to pay out more money. That's the way libtards act when they deal with other people's money.
@@frankyflowers - Under the NYPD police union contract, the city is still required to pay all lawsuits against any police officer. No cop will ever shell out a dime for any lawsuit because of this new city ordinance. All this does is put the city (taxpayers) on the hook to pay out more in settlements. Steve Lehto really needs to slow the fuck down and stop glossing over germane details like this.
@@bionicpuma2920 make them pay until they change it on the next contract. it needs to be done. they can buy insurance and pay more if they have volatile histories
That only concerns with actions they take in the course of their elected duties. To be frank about it, there are very very few things that a legislator can do to personally attack a persons rights within those confines. And if they pass unconstitutional law then you fight the law, not the legislature itself.
@@chrisjensen9476 Sounds like an even more compelling reason legislators don't need it either! I'm pretty sure the application of it is the same regardless of "official title" (it's only applicable in regards to actions they take in their official duties/capacities).
@@txtom Oh without a doubt, quantified immunity is a idiotic doctrine. Any lawsuit should be decided on its merits and standing period. But its going to take years frustratingly to abolish it step by step as the abuses of the doctrine become more obvious.
"By creating a new local civil right through legislation, New York City residents will be protected against unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force, and bans officers from using qualified immunity as a defense." Huh, I could have sworn we already had the right to not be unreasonably searched and seized or be beaten excessively. Oh, I forgot the 9th was a silly meaningless joke, so we had no right to not be punched in the face by police until just now. But I'm sure I read that first bit somewhere. The right to sue police was already legislated. So what prevents the courts from just making up another bs requirement to do it?
Qualified immunity has been greatly abused since its creation. law enforcement get away with basically anything they want because of it. This is a start and I hope it continues. You want to see cops start doing the right thing this will make it happen.
Not in America, but I took a course on US Con Law as an elective - I was under the impression that Hope v Pelzer meant that the "clearly established precendent" did not have to be exclusivly from the courts; that is, that a govt policy or initiative to not do something could establish what an LEO ought to know with regard a Constitutional right?
You are going to see a lot of NYPD officers walking away from situations saying, not my problem. I dont see a crime being committed in my presence, Im out of here.
@@neilkurzman4907 Can you imagine wanting to become a police officer in this climate of anti police rhetoric? One mistake in a snap decision moment and you lose everything you personally own in a lawsuit. No thanks. I live in the portland Or area, the police force is down by over a hundred officers. Not for lack of hiring, its lack of applicants.
@@starhawke380 if you live in the portland area you should know, like the rest of the world knows, that you're police force is down b/c of all the rioting you have going on daily for months and months now and nothing is done by your own council. The police there are not permitted to do their jobs period. Everyone knows Portland is a cess pool of dumb ass antifa and blm and is only that way b/c your own city permits it to happen.
Steve, I totally agree with your assertion that the Supreme Court does legislate from the bench. Bad idea. However, how does City council get to make “law”? In my Commonwealth, there is only one legislative body authorized pursuant to our Constitution to make “law”, the legislature. They are not authorized to delegate that authority. That can only indicate that all local ordinances do not apply to the people, only to their subordinates, ie; employees, contractors, and agents. They have never applied to the people and never will unless the people volunteer to be bound by them. Am I off base? Keep up the good work.
My POV was we were, already, supposed to be, protected from unwarranted searches & seizures through U.S. Constitution. Even Feds have have ignored this. DEA, often (to my impression) have seized property or money and not returned this property after their case failed against a defendant. Have heard of a case in, IIRC, N.C. where a Sherrie Dept. abused this immunity to, essentially, fund themselves (25 or so yrs ago).
On the face of it, this isn't a bad thing, but if there is nothing more to this and it opens police up to being sued without any filtering mechanism then you may find the police simply quit. Basically, it would make them fear doing their jobs. What actually want is them fearing when they break the law and do corrupt things, but knowing society has their backs if they do their duty fairly and honestly.
I agree with your premise. I believe they are heading in the right direction. However, there must be some filtering in applying this law, otherwise you're going to cause more problems than can be imagined. Just my opinion.
It was QUALIFIED. But it was applied as absolute. So like most bad laws. Because the law was not applied correctly. You “Toss out the baby with the bath water”
@@larrythompson8630 know how you fix it? Push for a bill with very tightly laid out "Qualifications". Not "on the job, cant be scared to do it". The "Cops steals $ from a home and cant be sued because he did it when he was ON DUTY"? No. The concept that they are immune as CIVILIANS off duty? NO. But I have seen that too. Based on "Cops are never REALLY off duty!".
The good thing is that for those areas that do away with qualified immunity (QI), there will now be cases saying, "it is a violation of a persons constitutional rights to steal money from them", thus for those places that there is still QI, there will be cases that are on point as to what actually is a violation, so the scope of QI should narrow in those places too.
Steve I was handcuffed and had my entire car searched in Brooklyn NYC after I fell asleep for about an hour and a half at McDonalds with an empty 20pc McNuggets and large soda next to me. They painfully held me cuffed and jerked the cuffs in order I could not see them breaking into my car(I locked it when leaving and they mustve used a slimjim), and they took all my fast food trash so no evidence I was just tired from lots of greasy food. I gave them my ID first(no record and vet) then got out of car after ordered. Rules change in NYC apparently! They let me go of course. I had out of state plates, in NYC visiting my friend on Park Ave(whose wife ironically was given a radio show personally by mayor Bloomberg). I of course was petrified and didnt protest for fear of them planting something or worse. I even suspected they planted a gps on my car because i had evidence an unmarked policeman had followed me that night. Keep up the good fight, I was in the US Army for a country where the people can stuggle and argue, and organizations can't operate with impunity. My brother taught at Chinese Univ for five years and he said (politically)" all of them have the same opinion " so no struggle, no problem, but as we'll agree in those types of counties, no solutions.
Does this remove QI for state/federal officers operating in NYC? Edit: 9:45 doesn't apply to federal/state but does it set precedent for Federal and State?
Drake Stafford - No, a new city ordinance is not a "precendent." It won't apply to state police or any federal officers. All this does it put taxpayers on the hook for settlements. It will have no effect whatsoever until police have to personally pay out of pocket.
@@bionicpuma2920 Thats not what I am asking, I am asking if someone sues an officer for violating their civil rights and wins in court against a NYPD officer, does that then clearly establish those rights? Such that someone else, who had an identical situation but outside nyc, would be able to show the courts that it was clearly established
@@ygrittesnow1701 only if ordered by the U. S. Supreme Court. The Federal Government does not give anything back to the states or people. I've been trained by, trained or worked with enough Federal agents and law enforcement to know. I was mostly a simple fire and rescue employee involved in many areas due to very special skills and a past in clandetine service overseas. Think of pirates: they take what they can and give nothing back!
Bout Time, In 2019, nursing student and single mother Stephanie Wilson had not one, but two cars seized by the Detroit Police Department, losing the first one forever. That same year, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the Transportation Security Administration seized retiree Terry Rolin’s life savings of $82,373 from his daughter as she passed through Pittsburgh International Airport on her way to open a joint bank account for him. Three years earlier and about 1,000 miles away, a sheriff’s deputy in rural Muskogee, Oklahoma, seized more than $53,000 from Eh Wah, the tour manager for a Burmese Christian musical act, during a routine traffic stop; the funds were concert proceeds and donations intended to support Burmese Christian refugees and Thai orphans. None of these victims were convicted of any crime.
City council had to do this, to stop the bleeding. The city was paying out enormous settlements, for false arrests, excessive force, and rights violations. Just like most large cities in this country.
Keith Gregory - You have no idea what you are talking about. Taxpayers will still have to pay for all police lawsuits/settlements. It will have no effect whatsoever on curbing police misbehavior until police have to personally pay out of pocket.
@@drooplug - You always had the right to sue a police officer in New York City. They already pay out hundreds of millions in settlements a year. This law will do nothing but give lawyers a windfall.
@@bionicpuma2920 No. You were able to sue the city, not the officer. Thats what the idea of qualified immunity is all about. The officer acts on behalf of the government, so that is who you bring to court. That is now over in NYC. You can now sue both NYC and the officer.
@@drooplug - Qualified immunity NEVER prevented a person from suing an individual officer. You have no idea what you're talking about. All the new city ordinance does it remove qualified immunity which will allow the legal profession to make tons more money. The individual officer will still never pay a dime in any lawsuit.
Steve I love your channel. Qualified immunity addresses civil suits arising from a loss/injury when the incident was NOT a violation of clearly established constitutional rights. It also deals specifically with suits against individuals and not agencies or governments. Example: I make a discretionary decision to close the interstate to recover an accident vehicle. You miss your job interview and sue me personally for your losses because you didn’t get the job. If I unlawfully detain you, injure you, take from you... (not in good faith) there is no immunity whatsoever. Yes there have been cases which abuse the argument for qualified immunity and I hope the issue is addressed. If you subject individuals in law enforcement to liability for every good faith action they take (which yielded a negative outcome for someone) you will quickly find it difficult to fill the ranks with folks willing to address criminals. Hope you see this... keep up the good work and thank you for presenting regular opportunities for civil discourse.
litigation as the fastest growing "uncontrollable" expense affecting government budget priorities and processes. law enforcement activities account for approximately forty percent (40%)of all payouts for governmental entities
So as cases get brought against NYPD Officers for a ruling, wouldn't those rulings now serve as precedent for potential cases brought against State and Federal Officers?
I guess this is good news. My liver will live me since I don't need to add brandy to my morning coffee, for a change. Lol. No, kidding. I don't drink any alcohol in the morning. Sometimes, when needed to sleep at night due to old injuries from work: allergies to narcotics cause this.
We don't need to get rid of any of them, but we do need to devastatingly restructure the entire US union system. There's far too much enmity built into the very concept, and that's deformed all sorts of things. Edited in: And I'm not just talking about government unions, I'm talking about _all_ of them. Unions started up engaging in literal small wars against large company owners in the US, and that antagonistic spirit was foolishly embraced in the legislation supporting the unions. It needs to change.
@@neilkurzman4907 Nope, I have no problem with private unions, so long membership isn't forced upon employees. But govt unions should be illegal. In the private world, unions represent the workers, and management represents the owners (stockholders). In the govt world, unions still represent the workers, but who represents the owners (taxpayers)? Elected officials do. Those same elected officials may be taking donations from govt unions and union workers, and govt union employees may even volunteer for their campaigns. Yet somehow, they are also supposedly "representing" the tax payer side of contract. To quote Reason Magazine: "First, the state creates a monopoly. The monopoly forces taxpayers to fund those workers, whether they do a good job or not. The union then coerces workers to pay dues regardless of whether or not they want to. Then the union uses those dues to help fund political advocacy that perpetuates their monopoly and the union's influence. So, in other words: racketeering."
@@randallkelley3600 Police unions are not needed. Until we do away with residents voting on school budgets? Teacher's Unions (restructured) are. Sorry. When teachers in a place are under threat of pay freezes or cuts after 15 years in? And the same land area cops 9 years in make 125k+OT+12% shift differential+GUARANTEED % raise if not promoted that year.........
I think qualified immunity is a nuanced issue but the current implementation is borderline insane. I don't want officers to be afraid to do their job because of the potential lawsuits but I also don't want them to be untouchable except in the most extreme cases. We really need to be careful to not go from one insane extreme to another.
Nassau handles this nicely. THen again they also FIRE BAD COPS. I know of 2. 1 was a cop who used a friend's address in NY to claim he lived here. Registered a shit car in NY and garaged it at that address. With a NYS DL. What did he actually do? Took the ferry from CT every morning in his VETTE, left that at his friend's house and drove to the PD in the NY registered Car. How did he get caught? He went to my gym. Parked it in front of the bike rack. Bike fell on it. Roid Cop began bugging out. Cops got called. IDIOT caused a scene in HIS PRECINCT while driving the CT car because it got damaged. Wasnt his buddies that showed up. The owner knew the Lt. He called him. Larry shows up (we know him too). Sees his officer in full rage mode. Then? Sees his CT registered car. With the CT DL in it. With his REAL address. 4 days later? He was unemployed for violating the residency (Need to be Nassau, Suffolk or NYC. Not CT). The other was the greatest ticket writer in the precinct history. Which was suspicious when it became consistent that 20 people a week ran a specific stop sign. So, without him knowing? IA was in an unmarked for 3 weeks observing. 13 tickets. Not ONE PERSON actually ran the stop sign. He just knew if they fought it the court would say "He is the cop. We believe him." barring video evidence. Fired and ARRESTED in uniform that day. THe only reason he got away with it for so long. For some reason, until 5 years ago? Traffic cruisers and unmarkeds were ONE COP alone.
Nonsense talk from you. That's just scare tactic talk either you are putting out in the universe or that you've heard. Police have to do their with or without qualified immunity. When they take a job (a call to respond to something) they have to have their body cameras activated and they have to also take action. If for whatever reason something doesn't go right or they failed to execute their "sworn" duties they will be held accountable. You people can't always make excuses for why cops and why other people of power shouldn't be held accountable otherwise they would run wild with egregious actions with no remorse.
Steve's a car nut from MI. It's from the Sammy Hagar song/video "I can't drive 55" In the video Sammy sprays an X on the sign. I also remember the show V you're refering to. The resistance would spray V in defiance of the alien lizard people. One of my favorite shows when I was a kid.
@@TW--- Ahhh. So it is not a 'V', but a music video 'X'; thanks! And yes, it was a great show, good enough to freak out a kid with a hyper active imagination! All my teachers were Aliens!
For real, this is amazing. My favorite part is requiring new officers to live in the city. Officers who dont live in a community lack understanding and have no need to care about the impact of their actions.
That one is more so to protect international diplomatic relations. For example you can't sue the country of China in a USA court. There is a big difference between sueing a foreign country and bringing a big tech company to court. So the one of "chipping away or making it clearer" would be the correct path to go. I don't think big enough companies are countries and if they are found to be so the taxes on them will change a lot.
Next, we need to go after making police buy their own liability insurance, like Drs, nurses, even massage therapists. We're tired of cities paying for an officer's lawsuit. Once an insurance company is tired of paying for the same officer's misdeeds, they'll become uninsurable, thus, unemployable as a law enforcement officer!
It is wrong for Steve Lehto to be an attorney! At the very least he should be sitting on the bench preferably a supreme Court or in some Congressional capacity! It is a waste for this man to be simply an attorney!
A citizen review board, representing the community where the police work, should be the only authority holding police accountable. They should have the full power of a grand jury. david
A citizen review board composed of people who know nothing about the law, police work or physical confrontations who have an innate dislike of the police are going to rule on a police officers career. And ruin it. The criminals are dancing with joy.
If the Supreme Court didn't allow police to lie, they would not have had the chance to create a new immunity for federal law enforcement under Brownback v King which stems from an incident where two federal joint task force officers came off as police impersonators and muggers to the kid who was harmed by their actions.
Funny that the city council didn’t ALSO remove their qualified immunity. Should also remove qualified immunity from judges that release violent criminals on bail/bond, and on parole boards. Hold them ALL accountable for their actions
Steve, I enjoyed you on that live stream with Rick today! Nullification, like our Founders talked about is a keyway to reverse unconstitutional measures such as qualified immunity. The focus is overwhelmingly on the courts to uphold laws where is the focus should be more on local government to not enforce mandates, executive orders or federal laws etc.
@@whearts Holland , Mich. Restaurant owner Marlena Pavlos - Hackney You Tube has MLive and WDIV , local support in Lansing Whitmer and her A. G. Went after her hard some guy from Texas tried to represent her but he's not a lawyer, he's in contempt, the judge is too involved holding her in contempt it's a mess huge fines daily what a tragedy 😞😞😞
Is there qualified immunity for probation and parole boards or judges for that matter? If I were a policeman I would be applying for a new job right about now.
The idea of qualified immunity was to protect civil servants from lawsuits for decisions that turn bad, but were made in good faith at the time, and were those that a reasonable person would make. It was never meant as a blanket protection for all actions. Somehow " qualified " came to mean " total ".
Remember all the Bible-Thumpers coming out when Steve talking about C.E./B.C.E. vs. A.D./B.C.? "Postmodernism....Satan....yadda yadda yadda". Read attorney Andrew Seidel, "The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American".
Press passes are the poison pill of this and would not survive any challenge. This act is intentionally designed to fail and is pretty much just political theatre.
@@Iansco1 No government entity has the right to control press passes or truly issue them. The first amendment is explicit on that. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FfHXJpVsHJ4.html If this is challenged, someone will most probably look at that closely.
Thank you. This is excellent news for the men that are on child support. The Supreme Court in December 2020 in re TAYLOR v. RIOJAS to review the qualified immunity. All non-judicial offices of the child support can be sued under this new change.
Mr. Skipper - All this does it put taxpayers on the hook for settlements. It will have no effect whatsoever until police have to personally pay out of pocket.
@@bionicpuma2920 Exactly! You'll think twice about man handling an innocent person or beating someone into a coma if it means you go bankrupt and your family goes on good stamps... No one should be exempt from the law.
What happens if the cop appeals to federal court? Do they rule one way for the NYPD and the other for everyone else? Qualified immunity needs to be eliminated at the federal level.
Qualified immunity never really makes sense outside the rare freak cases. Doesn't matter if you're a burger-flipper or a car mechanic everyone is expected to obey laws and are guilty of crimes even if they didn't know the action was a crime. Why do cops get a pass on exactly what they inflict on the people?
