Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

innocenceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 335 posts

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#121

Post by int_19h »

caseysoftware wrote: post #14

> “Qualified immunity is a court-created doctrine that allows public officials to escape accountability after they engage in misconduct, even when their actions send an innocent person to prison. I know this is likely impossible.. but I'd love to see prosecutors/law enforcement have to serve out the sentence or someone they convicted via misconduct. Withhold or manufacture evidence to push for a 10 year sentence? Sur…

You don't even need anything quite so radical. For starters, punish prosecutors who have evidence that would be beneficial to defense, and deliberately conceal it (yes, this happens all the time!).

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#122

Post by LatteLazy »

From the outside, the US has big issues with race, poverty, mental health and access to firearms. That makes policing very difficult and pushes towards a "shoot first" approach.

But since the US refuses to address any of the issues, it's stuck trying to fix the problem without being able to fix the problem.

What concerns me most (and I see it here in the UK too) isn't these issues themselves, it is the inability of people (media, politicians and everyday citizens) to have an adult conversation about any of it. If the US collectively said "we accept these events as a downside of our way of life" I might not agree but I'd understand. Instead people act like they're surprised or pretend they can be fixed by tinkering around the edges. It seems quite dishonest...

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#123

Post by lsiebert »

A frivolous lawsuit can still be dismissed without qualified immunity, and they regularly are, but the problem is that serious wrongdoing is also regularly dismissed, creating a catch 22 where the lack of existing case law and the requirement that wrongdoing be in violation of clearly established law (which generally means nearly identical facts) leads to cases being dismissed before they become case law.

That's not conducive to good governance, which is why you get conservative Libertarians like The Cato Institute joining with the NAACP to argue against it.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#124

Post by int_19h »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #10

I don't know why anyone would want to be a police officer. There's no upside. Aside from the genuine affection they get from the people they help here and there. Given the nature of their job, it seems like there would be too much personal risk to get involved in any kind of physical altercation with the public. Because if you get in a fight, I mean a real fight, you better be ready to fight-to-win. Because there's a…

It depends on what kind of cop, obviously. But here's one example.

"The officers with SWAT and dynamic-entry experience interviewed for this book say raids are orders of magnitude more intoxicating than anything else in police work. Ironically, many cops describe them with language usually used to describe the drugs the raids are conducted to confiscate. “Oh, it’s a huge rush,” Franklin says. “Those times when you do have to kick down a door, it’s just a big shot of adrenaline.” Downing agrees. “It’s a rush. And you have to be careful, because the raids themselves can be habit-forming.” Jamie Haase, a former special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement who went on multiple narcotics, money laundering, and human trafficking raids, says the thrill of the raid may factor into why narcotics cops just don’t consider less volatile means of serving search warrants. “The thing is, it’s so much safer to wait the suspect out,” he says. “Waiting people out is just so much better. You’ve done your investigation, so you know their routine. So you wait until the guy leaves, and you do a routine traffic stop and you arrest him. That’s the safest way to do it. But you have to understand that a lot of these cops are meatheads. They think this stuff is cool. And they get hooked on that jolt of energy they get during a raid.”"

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#125

Post by int_19h »

ljp_206 wrote: post #22
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no upside A San Jose, California cop makes over $120,000 a year [1]. They also get terrific benefits. [1] https://www.indeed.com/cmp/SAN-Jose-Police-Department/salari...

Seattle cops similarly make bank. Of course, police pay is heavily effected by local cost of living, but Seattle cops make tons of overtime. I just learned there is a minimum three-hour overtime pay, meaning much of the overtime payout isn't even physically worked: https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/09/04/seattle-police-fleeci...

A lawyer friend of mine told me that it's a well known thing (at least in WA) that state patrol deliberately tries to ticket people at the end of their shift, because then they have to go through with the whole rigmarole of writing a traffic ticket, and it goes into overtime, triggering the payment. Supposedly, if you look at the statistical breakdown of tickets written by time of day, you see a clear spike there.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#126

Post by int_19h »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #10

I don't know why anyone would want to be a police officer. There's no upside. Aside from the genuine affection they get from the people they help here and there. Given the nature of their job, it seems like there would be too much personal risk to get involved in any kind of physical altercation with the public. Because if you get in a fight, I mean a real fight, you better be ready to fight-to-win. Because there's a…

The current state of affairs is entirely of police's own making. It's not like that in many other countries, where cops are genuinely respected.

And maybe we do need radical measures to fix things. Georgia (the country) had a similar problem with their traffic police. They solved it by literally firing the entire force overnight, then raising both the hiring standards and the pay, and rebuilding it all from scratch.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#127

Post by twhb »

radlad wrote: post #119
twhb wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please try to stay civil. In response to your assertion that the courts don’t work: > If the laws that protect us aren’t good enough, then the solution is better laws, not to exempt some classes from the law!

Nothing the parent said was uncivil. (I say this having largely agreed with your original comment.)

Thank you for weighing in, genuinely. I could have misread tone, I’m sorry to brnt if I did. I perceived it as uncivil because it seemed to veer into identity politics, and to belittle my opinions as “not that difficult” to see the error in.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#128

Post by mardifoufs »

ghayes wrote: post #111
wahern wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they make sense, but they're definitely not explicitly or even implicitly granted in the U.S. constitution, and the various legal theories (e.g. substantive due process) behind the court's power to recognize them are still vilified by conservative jurists and pundits. Miranda Rights had historical precedence in England, but IIRC mostly after America forked. The right to counsel mentioned in the U.S. Bill of R…

Many Miranda rights are _expressly_ granted by the Constitution. For example, the right to remain silent is clearly delineated in the Fifth Amendment [0], without the need for substantive due process. To the point you mentioned, from the Sixth Amendement: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." You can argue over how that counsel should…

I think he meant to say that the constitution doesn't say anything about having a right to be notified about those rights when you are arrested. What could be understood to be "Miranda" rights have a very clear constitutional basis and were not established by the supreme Court, as you said... but I think the term refers more to the Miranda warning that the police has to give to suspects in custody.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#129

Post by kergonath »

dk775 wrote: post #74
katbyte wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the cops who worry about this are the ones we don't want to be cops. Its like my male friends who complained about the MeToo movement "how will i date when i have to worry about consent" - uh shouldn't you already be confident theres consent before doing anything? lol

Not true. Anyone who joins a job like that is going to want strong protections whether they use them or not. Why would I work for department X where if I make a mistake I can be ruined when department Y will trust that by going thru the process to become LE, in general I’m not looking to be a corrupt maniac. Not to mention those same depts will let me keep an AR in my trunk, send an MRAP to cover me when I am going i…

> Anyone who joins a job like that is going to want strong protections whether they use them or not.

Then it’s not surprising if you get a bunch of bullies drunk on power with guns. They need to be accountable because they can ruin people’s lives or end them altogether, and regularly do.

> going thru the process to become LE, in general I’m not looking to be a corrupt maniac.

Then the process needs improvements. It looks like there are way too many corrupt maniacs getting through.

> Similarly, why would I join a dept with a weak union when I can be in one where I’m backed by a union that for better or worse will assume innocent until proven guilty and protect the paying members.

Innocent until proven guilty is for plebs. The problem is when they are shielded from even getting prosecuted. This is no justice.

From the society’s point of view some degree of protection of law enforcement is useful, because it helps them do their job in difficult situations. However, the rest of us need to trust law enforcement, otherwise the social contract breaks down. This means we need to trust that they get punished when they kill people they should not or when they bully and harass people for the lulz. Otherwise, what’s the incentive for them to behave?

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#130

Post by vinay427 »

adamsvystun wrote: post #49
mike_d wrote: post #40

The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. It applies to all parts of government. Didn't get the building permit for your kids horse barn? Sue the planning commission members individually. Animal control writes you a citation for Puddles not being on a leash? Unleash the lawyers. Health department gave yo…

Isn't qualified immunity applies only to police? If not, then the solution should be to end qualified immunity for police only. There is a difference between health department inspector and police officer, no reason to apply the same standards in both cases.

For what it's worth, while New Mexico's law covers all governmental bodies, Colorado passed a law last June that only banned qualified immunity for law enforcement [1]. The city of New York also recently did so for NYPD officers [2].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-colora...

[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-qualified-immunity-police-m...

Post reply on HN