WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Law enforcement officers in the United States are increasingly buying professional liability insurance policies amid worries they may be sued for their on-duty actions, the Fraternal Order of Police, the biggest U.S. police union, told Reuters.
Between July 2014 and July 2015, the number of members who bought the union’s liability insurance jumped 15 percent, according to data from the FOP released this week and shared exclusively with Reuters.
In previous years, liability insurance purchases grew only between one to three percent, said Jim Pasco, executive director of the FOP, which represents more than 330,000 officers.
The insurance would help cover legal fees, but would not protect against criminal prosecution.
The sharp jump comes amid a national debate over whether law enforcement should be under more surveillance and scrutiny, especially in light of a wave of publicized cases where deadly force was used against unarmed civilians, many of them minorities.
“In an already litigious society, the likelihood of a police officer being sued or charged, often falsely, grows by the day. Officers are increasingly aware of the need to be protected and joining the FOP legal defense plan in growing numbers,” said Pasco, whose union sells insurance for $265 a year.
Civil rights groups such as Black Lives Matter and the Obama administration have called for increased accountability for officers, including the use of body cameras and community oversight.
Still, some in law enforcement, including FBI Director James Comey, have said that the increased scrutiny has made officers feel antagonized and afraid to do their jobs.
“The environment has become increasingly volatile towards law enforcement in general,” said Jonathan Adler, a member and past president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, where insurance purchases grew 10 percent last year.
Several high-profile police-involved shootings between July 2014 and July 2015, the period the union studied, led to civil and criminal suits being filed against police.
Officers sued in wrongful death lawsuits include Ferguson, Missouri officer Darren Wilson, who shot unarmed teen Michael Brown in August 2014, and Cleveland officers Frank Garmback and Timothy Loehmann, the officers who encountered Tamir Rice, 12, who was shot while carrying a toy gun in November 2014.
The insurance also covers officers charged in criminal cases like Michael Slager, the officer charged in the murder of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina in April 2015.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the rise in officer liability insurance.
http://news.yahoo.com/more-u-police-officers-buying-insurance-case-lawsuits-191924426–finance.html
Qualified immunity.
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 124 (1908) (The attempt of a State officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of, and does not affect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity, and is an illegal act, and the officer is stripped of his official character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to its officer immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.); http://supreme.justia.com/us/209/123/case.html
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, (31) should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment. On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. (32) If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful. Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed. If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily [457 U.S. 800, 819] should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Nevertheless, if the official pleading the defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard, the defense should be sustained. But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/457/800.html
Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 184 (1984); aff’d. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987) Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. No other circumstances are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/468/183.html
Sed Vide: Westfall Act. The “Westfall Act certification,” submitted pursuant to the Westfall Act of 1988, permits the Attorney General, at his or her discretion, to substitute the United States as the defendant and essentially grant absolute immunity to government employees for actions taken within the scope of their employment. http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war
ORS 398.412 [1961 c.454 s.205; 1981 c.178 s.14] (Immunity for action of military courts) (No action or proceeding may be prosecuted against the convening authority or a member of a military court or officer or person acting under its authority or reviewing its proceedings because of the approval, imposition, or execution of any sentence or the imposition or collection of a fine or penalty, or the execution of any process of a military court.);
N.B. Abandonment for torts. State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Reuter, 299 Or 155, 159-60, 700 P2d 236 (1985) (A criminal conviction may conclusively establish that an insured engaged in “intentional” conduct, thus triggering an insurance policy exclusion for intentional acts.); Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or 397, 401, 877 P2d 80 (1994) (“Injuries resulting from intentional acts are excluded from insurance coverage when the insured intended to cause the particular injury or harm, as opposed to merely intending the act.”); State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Parker, 98-1612-L2; CA A105977 (Or. 05/24/2000) (“intentional” conduct thus triggering an insurance policy exclusion for intentional acts) (Attorney Andersen being Attorney of Record in this case); http://159.121.112.45/A105977.htm
“The environment has become increasingly volatile towards law enforcement in general,”
Yeah, that tends to happen after a few years of the POS scumbags indiscriminately MURDERING people in cold blood.
I foresee it getting FAR more hostile in the very near future.
Don’t need a crystal ball for that one, either.