Views: 2485
| ARTICLE
|
Rate This Article |
|
|
| Police officers are often threatened with lawsuits by dissatisfied citizens during the course of their work. Many people try to sue an individual police officer but few people are ever successful in even getting into a court room to plead their cases. Police officers are generally protected from civil lawsuits and suing one is not always easy even though it is threatened on a daily basis. | |
Sponsored Links |
|
The short answer to the question of whether it is possible to sue a police officer under most circumstances is NO! Why? Because police officers have a special exemption from civil lawsuits called "Qualified Immunity". Just as one cannot sue a judge based on a ruling that may or may not seem fair, one cannot sue a police officer because a particular outcome did not seem fair. It is recognized by the highest court in the land that police officers are still human-beings and subject to making mistakes. It is further recognized that law enforcement is not always a clear cut occupation and that decisions sometimes need to be made quickly. Mistakes or negative outcomes made under sometimes extreme stress or rapidly unfolding events are bound to happen. If someone attempts to sue a police officer, before a lawsuit ever sees the light of a court room, it must be determined if "Qualified Immunity" is granted to the police officer by the court. If the police officer has "Qualified Immunity" in a particular lawsuit, then it is dismissed or thrown out of court without a jury ever hearing any testimony. Police officers are judged under a standard of reasonableness. What is reasonable? That is a case by case issue and based on many factors such as, what information did the police officer have? How much training did the officer have regarding a particular scenario? How long had the officer been employed and working as a police officer? What was the officer's perception of the event? Did the officer have assistance from other officers? How many people/opponents was the officer dealing with? What is the officer's physical makeup (muscular, skinny, overweight, etc al)? What was the physical makeup of the officer's opponent(s) in comparison (opposite sex, large stature, small stature)? Did the officer escalate or try to de-escalate a situation? Did the officer follow the departmental practices and procedures as closely as possible? What would other reasonable officers have done in the same situation? Those are the sort of questions that are addressed to determine if a police officer was reasonable in his or her actions even if the worst possible outcomes occur. If an officer is reasonable in carrying out his or her duties then the officer has "Qualified Immunity" and cannot be sued as an individual no matter what has happened. Does all of this sound unfair? Well, if police officers are to exist and be expected to interact with the public daily by enforcing laws, arresting people -by force if necessary, responding to and dealing with violent occurrences and keeping the peace, then they cannot be expected to be perfect 100% of the time because the environment that they work in is not perfect. It is an unfortunate part of the job. People will get hurt, people will be offended and things will not always go as planned. A police officer should not be subjected to personal lawsuits if and when something goes terribly wrong or if that officer makes a reasonable mistake. If police officers had no such civil protections, who would want to do the job? Under such circumstances, police forces would not nearly be as effective and the public would not be well served. Instead of rushing towards danger, police officers would avoid it for fears of the dangers going all wrong leaving them to the scrutiny of civil jurors which could ruin their lives. When can a police officer be sued civilly? The difference between an officer having "Qualified Immunity" and not having it usually rests with the legality of an officer's actions. There is a distinct difference between an officer acting reasonably and an officer acting with malice, knowingly and intentionally violating laws and intentionally violating someone's civil rights. Criminal behavior on the part of a police officer is without a doubt unacceptable and any officer doing so is no longer an officer. That officer becomes a criminal without immunity and subject to the same fate as other criminals and can be sued civilly just like anyone else. Rarely, times may arise when someone will attempt to sue a police officer and "Qualified Immunity" cannot be established which may result in a civil trial. Those instances occur when both the police officer and the plaintiff tell completely different and extreme versions of an event and no evidence or witnesses exist to support either party, especially the police officer. Under such circumstances a judge may allow a trial if the plaintiff's statements are more reasonable than the officer's and let a jury hear the the two sides of the story to decide the outcome. Modern police forces avoid this by equipping police cars and officers with audio and video recording devices. Of course in the event that a person is wronged as a result of a police officer with qualified immunity, the officer's agency itself may be liable for civil damages just not the officer him or herself. |
|
Syndicate This Article: [HTML (copy & paste)] |
| Rate this article! | Report Article |
( 0 Votes )
