Federal Law on Qualified Immunity Reform

Liberty Justice
,
1

Purpose:

To promote accountability, transparency, and justice by reforming Qualified Immunity protections for government employees and agencies. This law is proposed as a single-item legislation to ensure clarity and transparency for the American public.

Section 1: Prohibition on Use of Taxpayer Funds for Civil Rights Violations

  1. Prohibition on Funding: No government agency, whether federal, state, or local, may use taxpayer funds to pay settlements or judgments resulting from civil lawsuits alleging violations of Civil Rights.
  2. Penalties for Violation: Any individual or group of individuals involved in authorizing or facilitating the use of taxpayer funds for this purpose will face a minimum prison sentence of 10 years.

Section 2: Elimination of Qualified Immunity as an Automatic Defense

  1. Civilian Review Board Oversight:
    • Civil Rights lawsuits will no longer be immediately dismissed using Qualified Immunity.
    • The case must first be evaluated by a Civilian Review Board (CRB) as described in Section 8.
  2. Qualified Immunity Restrictions:
    • If the CRB determines Civil Rights were violated, the Qualified Immunity defense cannot be invoked to dismiss the lawsuit.
    • If no violation is found, the Qualified Immunity defense may be applied.

Section 3: Individual Insurance Requirement for Employees

  1. Mandatory Insurance:
    • All government employees, including law enforcement officers and officials who benefit from Qualified Immunity, are required to maintain an individual Civil Rights liability insurance policy.
    • The insurance must cover lawsuits stemming from Civil Rights violations for which the employee is convicted.
  2. Prohibition on Insuring Repeat Offenders:
    • No insurance company may issue liability insurance to employees who have been convicted of three (3) Civil Rights violations.

Section 4: Employee Restrictions During Civil Rights Lawsuits

  1. Ineligibility to Perform Duties:
    • Any government employee who is a defendant in a pending Civil Rights lawsuit is prohibited from performing official duties until the lawsuit is resolved.
    • Such employees may not be placed on paid administrative leave but may be placed on unpaid administrative leave.
  2. Prevention of Employment Transfers:
    • Employees under investigation or with pending lawsuits for Civil Rights violations are prohibited from resigning to avoid disciplinary action and being rehired by another agency.
    • Agencies found to have knowingly hired such employees will face penalties, including financial sanctions and administrative review.
  3. False Statements to Obtain Employment:
    • Any government employee found to have knowingly lied or provided false information to secure a position at another agency will face a minimum prison sentence of 15 years.

Section 5: Termination of Eligibility After Multiple Violations

  1. Three-Strikes Policy:
    • Any government employee convicted of three (3) Civil Rights violations will be permanently barred from holding any government position that benefits from Qualified Immunity protections.

Section 6: Transparency of Disciplinary Records

  1. Public Access:
    • All disciplinary records of government employees shall be publicly accessible within 15 business days of a valid request.
    • Agencies failing to comply will pay the requester $250 per calendar day starting on the 16th business day, up to a maximum of $250,000.

Section 7: Civilian Review Board (CRB)

  1. Composition and Selection:
    • Each CRB will consist of 13 individuals randomly selected from the local population, similar to jury duty.
    • Independent attorneys will serve in an advisory role to guide CRB members on relevant state and federal laws.
  2. CRB Responsibilities:
    • Evaluate evidence, context, and information related to Civil Rights lawsuits from a “reasonable person” perspective.
    • Make determinations on whether Civil Rights were violated based on a majority vote.
  3. Nondisclosure Agreements (NDA):
    • All CRB members and attorneys must sign NDAs, with violations punishable by a minimum of 5 years in prison.
  4. Protections Against Interference:
    • Any individual who hinders, intimidates, or threatens CRB members or advisors will face a minimum fine of $100,000 and a minimum prison sentence of 5 years.
  5. Outcome Determinations:
    • Violation Found: If the CRB determines Civil Rights were violated, both parties will receive documentation supporting the finding, and Qualified Immunity cannot be invoked.
    • No Violation Found: If the CRB finds no violation, both parties will receive documentation supporting the finding, and Qualified Immunity may be invoked.

Section 8: Penalties for Noncompliance

  1. Agencies or employees found in violation of any section of this law will be subject to penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or both, as specified in each section.
  2. Failure to comply with this law will result in mandatory federal oversight and review of the offending agency or entity.

This federal law ensures accountability for government employees and agencies while protecting the rights of American citizens. Its clear and comprehensive structure promotes transparency and restores public trust in the justice system.

2 Likes
2

“Such employees may not be placed on paid administrative leave but may be placed on unpaid administrative leave.”

A foundational principle of our justice system is one is innocent until proven guilty. By depriving one of their income until a case is adjudicated (which can take years) you are inflicting punishment on someone who is innocent in the eyes of the law.

A problem with private insurance for violations is it removes the punitive aspect of a judgment, this becomes a cost of doing business. This could be addressed by stipulating that insurance kicks in following the depletion of all personal assets. For example, if a jury awarded $1M for damages and the defendant’s home, car, bank account and retirement plan only came to $250K the insurance would cover the balance.

3

MDarnall and Steve,

Really interesting idea. I like the way MDarnall writes up the proposal. Here are my thoughts:

  1. The cost shifting, in my opinion, doesn’t really make much of a change and doesn’t impact the core problem with Qualified Immunity. While you can make officers buy their own insurance, between the police union, salary adjustments, and expense allowance, the funds would just be moved around and it would be a net wash for the officers.
  2. I am not sure this proposal really addresses the bigger issue with Qualified Immunity. While it is used to defend against Civil Rights violation cases, the vast majority of Qualified Immunity defense covers a whole slew of misconducts, errors of commission and omission, concealing or planting evidence, lack of disclosures, and plain old corruption. The vast majority of these cases never see the light of day. And if a savvy (and usually well-paid) defense attorney manages to catch one of these, and has the enough of the client’s money to press the issue, the best outcome is their client gets off (but this is not guaranteed), and law enforcement gets a stern comment from the judge, but nothings ever happens because of Qualified Immunity protection. Most Civil Right cases involve minorities and physical harm. But the vast majority of Qualified Immunity defenses doesn’t involve physical harm. It involves stuff that is done quietly and is not visible to the public.

I would be interest in sharing more of my thoughts on addressing the Qualified Immunity Reform. Since both of you have an interest in Justice Reform, I would invite you to read my Justice Reform proposal, Workers’ Indemnity and Guaranty Plans. Justice Reform: WORKERS’ INDEMNITY AND GUARANTY PLAN

I would welcome your support, like and vote, and/or reply with questions and/or comments on how it could be improved.

4

I appreciate your concern regarding the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” However, there are important distinctions to consider when evaluating the accountability of public employees compared to private-sector professionals.

Addressing Paid Administrative Leave:

Employees in the public sector, particularly those entrusted with significant authority, often operate under a unique set of protections not afforded to other professions. For instance, if a doctor, mechanic, or construction worker causes harm due to negligence or misconduct, they are not entitled to remain on payroll while their actions are under investigation, particularly if they are terminated or suspended.

Government employees, who are funded by taxpayer dollars, should adhere to a standard that prioritizes public trust and fiscal responsibility. Allowing individuals accused of serious civil rights violations to remain on paid administrative leave does not align with these principles. While ensuring due process is critical, temporary unpaid administrative leave, or reassignment to non-sensitive roles, serves as a balanced approach. This protects taxpayer interests while allowing investigations to proceed without prematurely concluding guilt or innocence.

Private Insurance for Civil Rights Violations:

Your point about private insurance removing the punitive aspect of judgments is noted, but the framework I propose accounts for this. Insurance companies assess risk and adjust premiums accordingly. Employees with a history of civil rights violations will face higher premiums, reflecting their increased risk. If violations persist, they may become uninsurable, effectively disqualifying them from roles where they could cause further harm.

This system creates a strong incentive for employees to adhere to legal and constitutional standards:
1. For law-abiding employees, there will be minimal or no impact as they respect the rights of the public.
2. For employees who commit a single violation, higher premiums will serve as a corrective measure, encouraging behavioral change while reducing the financial burden on taxpayers.
3. For repeat offenders, uninsurability ensures they cannot remain in roles where they might continue to violate civil rights, thereby protecting the public and reducing taxpayer-funded settlements.

Ensuring Accountability:

Currently, taxpayers bear the financial burden of settlements for civil rights violations, even in cases of egregious misconduct. Shifting this accountability to individual employees and their insurers not only promotes fiscal responsibility but also incentivizes better behavior. Public service should not shield individuals from the consequences of violating the public trust. A robust system of accountability ensures:
• Greater respect for civil rights.
• Protection of taxpayer funds.
• Removal of repeat offenders from positions of authority.

5

I’d like to address a few of them while clarifying aspects of the proposal that may have been misunderstood.

On Cost Shifting and Insurance:

You raise an important concern about cost shifting, suggesting that police unions or salary adjustments might offset the financial impact of individual insurance requirements. However, the core of this proposal is not about creating a financial penalty in isolation—it’s about introducing a risk-based accountability system.

Insurance companies operate based on calculated risk. Employees who respect the law and uphold constitutional rights will have minimal premiums, as their behavior does not create significant liability. However, those who repeatedly violate civil rights will see their premiums rise or, ultimately, find themselves uninsurable.

This is the critical point: uninsurable employees cannot hold positions that require Qualified Immunity protections. This system inherently removes habitual offenders from positions of authority, ensuring they cannot continue to violate rights, regardless of financial backing from unions or salary adjustments.

Addressing the Bigger Picture:

I agree that Qualified Immunity is often invoked in cases that go beyond physical harm, encompassing misconduct, evidence tampering, and other quiet but significant violations. The proposal indirectly addresses these issues by:

  1. Requiring transparency: Disciplinary records will be publicly accessible, which reduces the ability to conceal misconduct and protects the public’s right to know about employee actions.

  2. Mandating independent oversight: The Civilian Review Board (CRB) ensures that cases involving potential rights violations receive unbiased scrutiny. This breaks the cycle of internal review processes that too often result in no action being taken.

  3. Incentivizing accountability: The risk of losing insurability creates a powerful deterrent against misconduct, corruption, and negligence. Repeat offenders will not just receive “stern comments” but will face tangible consequences: the inability to hold positions of power and responsibility.

On Broader Reform:

Your point about the scope of Qualified Immunity and its application to non-physical harms is valid. While this proposal focuses on civil rights violations, the mechanisms outlined—such as insurance requirements, independent review, and the prohibition of taxpayer-funded settlements—can serve as a framework for addressing other areas of misconduct. The key is ensuring that government employees are subject to the same accountability standards as private citizens.

Qualified Immunity vs. Discrimination Against Workers with Criminal Records:

It’s also important to clarify that Qualified Immunity and discrimination against workers with criminal records are two separate subjects. The focus here is on ensuring accountability for public employees currently protected by Qualified Immunity. Addressing issues related to discrimination against workers with criminal records would require distinct policies, though both topics are vital to justice reform in their own right. Reading your proposal: it is very well laid out and I hope it makes it to the Senate.

6

Thank you for your well reasoned & articulate response, it’s refreshing! You make a good point about public servants receiving unique protections not enjoyed by civilian employees, however most civilian employees are not exposed to the number of complaints that LEO are. Since law enforcement agencies tend to investigate themselves it’s probably difficult to obtain good statistics on how many accusations are valid vs someone upset about getting caught. Would a preponderance of evidence test be a compromise position, where an officer gets cut off if a preliminary review of evidence by an independent body indicates that a serious civil rights violation occurred?

The insurance model you suggest has its parallel with malpractice insurance, where premiums reflect risk and at some point an individual becomes uninsurable. How about having a deductible, where the officer is responsible for the first $5K of a judgment. This way the officer has some skin in the game even on the first offense and will serve as a deterrent from even having the first incident happen.

The use of insurance addresses civil consequences for LEO misconduct, but it maintains the current double standard in terms of criminal consequences. If I beat someone up, I get charged with assault, if I drag someone from their home and transport them against their will I get charged with kidnapping, if I lie to the court I can be charged with perjury. A LEO can be sued for excessive force, but doesn’t face assault charges, a LEO can be sued for false arrest, but doesn’t face kidnapping charges and a LEO can misrepresent facts but doesn’t face perjury charges. Should this also be addressed?

Body worn cameras (along with the ubiquitous cell phone camera) have vastly improved transparency. However in too many cases of officer misconduct the body worn camera was not turned on, or the camera was obscured or the video was mysteriously “lost”. Should an officers testimony automatically be discounted when an officers action (or inaction) results in body camera video not being available? This would seem to create a powerful incentive to turn the camera on.

7

I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment on my reform proposal. It is nice to have an intelligent and respectful conversation about the current political climate in this country. We are all on the same side,

Response to Paragraph 1:
You mentioned the issue of law enforcement agencies investigating themselves and consistently finding “no wrongdoing.” This reflects the problematic nature of internal investigations, which often rely on reciprocal nepotism (favoritism based on mutual benefit) and entitlement nepotism (favoritism stemming from a sense of entitlement).

The creation of a Civilian Review Board (CRB) addresses this concern. The CRB operates as an independent review board, guided by civil rights attorneys, to conduct impartial preliminary reviews and assess evidence. This eliminates the influence of internal biases and ensures transparency and accountability.

Response to Paragraph 2:
Regarding your comment about requiring officers to have “skin in the game” through a deductible like $5,000, it is important to clarify that the goal of this initiative is not to punish officers but to identify and remove those who repeatedly violate citizens’ rights.

For example, under the proposed system:
• Officer John Doe starts with an insurance premium of $250 per month. After the CRB determines he violated a citizen’s rights (non-violent), his insurance policy compensates the victim, and his premium increases to $750 per month.
• A second violation results in another payout and an increased premium of $1,500 per month.
• A third violation makes him uninsurable, effectively barring him from holding positions that require qualified immunity.

Additionally, if multiple officers in the same department are found guilty of rights violations, the department’s overall risk profile rises, leading to higher premiums for all employees. This creates an incentive for accountability and a culture where employees are more likely to intervene when they witness misconduct.

Response to Paragraph 3:
You highlight the double standard where employees avoid criminal charges for actions that would be criminal if committed by civilians. The CRB addresses this disparity by validating whether civil rights violations occurred. If violations are confirmed, the employee loses the ability to invoke qualified immunity, opening them to potential criminal charges.

The larger issue lies with District Attorneys (DAs)—who work closely with law enforcement officers and judges—being influenced by reciprocal and entitlement nepotism. This raises a critical question: even if qualified immunity is removed, will DAs hold officers accountable?

Response to Paragraph 4:
The issue of body-worn cameras is another critical point. There are numerous instances where officers turn off, mute, or obscure their cameras, undermining transparency.

If there is no wrongdoing, officers have no reason to tamper with their cameras. Just as citizens are often told, “If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind a search,” the same principle should apply to officers using body-worn cameras. Tampering with or failing to use body-worn cameras should result in the officer’s testimony being discounted during reviews.

Body-worn cameras protect both officers and citizens by providing unbiased evidence, and their consistent use should be enforced to uphold accountability. Tampering with or losing camera footage should be treated as a criminal offense, similar to tampering with evidence for civilians. (See the discussion in Paragraph 3 regarding District Attorneys and their role in enforcing accountability.)

This is my take on Qualified Immunity:
To clarify, this initiative does not seek to eliminate qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is essential to protect employees from frivolous or malicious lawsuits.

However, an independent body like the CRB would validate whether a citizen’s rights were violated. If the CRB finds no violation, qualified immunity remains intact. If a violation is confirmed, the officer loses the ability to invoke qualified immunity, and the matter can proceed to civil or criminal litigation. This ensures that qualified immunity is used as a shield for lawful actions—not as a blanket protection for misconduct.

Thank you for your input and I welcome any other comments or improvements you may have.
People need to communicate to improve our country.