HB 1166: Police Responsibility Act (Passed)

[Mr. Reactionary]

Does this preclude localities from offering liability insurance to police?

Also, is this eliminating qualified immunity? I am assuming that within the context of lawsuits this is an amendment to Sec 1983 of the Civil Rights Act? From a separation of powers standpoint, purely state causes of action probably can't be controlled in this way, but Sec. 1983 actions can, since those are under the umbrella of the 14th amendment.

[Mr. Reactionary]

(Applying IRL Con Law principles)

Article 3 of the constitution contains an exhaustive list of subject matter jurisdiction which a federal court is allowed to hear. General tort claims are reserved to the States. Tort claims alleging that a State or local government employee violated your constitutional rights are allowed in Federal Court. Thats because the 14th amendment gives congress the power to enforce its provisions, so they passed section 1983 which gives jurisdiction to federal courts over such claims.

Qualified immunity largely consists of non-section 1983 offenses. Legally, the extent of this law would be limited to tort claims alleging a constitutional rights violation, which would not cover all civil claims related to police brutality.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Does this preclude localities from offering liability insurance to police?

I believe that under the current text, yes it would.  I would accept a change to this bill that allows police to buy liability insurance if they so choose.

     We should have someone writing this amendment. Would Representative Mr. Reactionary be interested?

I can do it after work

[Mr. Reactionary]

Without endorsing or condemning this proposal, these would be my proposed changes to make this legal while maintaining as much of the original language and ideas as possible. Additions in bold; notes in Red

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I am agreeable, if Mr. R is. Remember this is his amendment originally.

Im fine with whatevs. I was mostly just trying to excise the unconstitutional parts. I didnt even finish section 2 because I figured the bill sponsor should take a stab at clarifying what he meant rather than just having me dictate it. This was mostly me pointing out the parts I might sue over if I was bored and the bill were to pass as originally written. I want to sue the Feds about something to make sure the Supreme Court gets to play too ... consider this friendly notice that the original bill could qualify. (Although im still leaning towards the hooker bill if it passes the House).