End qualified immunity in Arizona

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "Notwithstanding any other law,** a peace officer **who, in the performance of the peace officer's duties or the failure to intervene, subjects another person or causes another person to be subjected to the deprivation of any individual right that creates a binding obligation on a government actor and that is secured by the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Rights, Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief. **Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section."**

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer who, in the performance of the peace officer's duties or the faillure to intervene, subjects another person or causes another person to be subjected to the deprivation of **any individual right that creates a binding obligation on a government actor and that is secured by the rights enumerated in the declaration of rights, Article II, Constitution of Arizona, **is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

Yes, monetary caps on liability are unconstitutional in Arizona.

Partially, the proposed legislation addresses officer intervention, but does not require reporting an intervention. Section 1 of the bill states, "notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer who, in the performance of the peace officer's duties or the failure to intervene, subjects another person or causes another person to be subjected to the deprivation of any individual right that creates a binding obligation on a government actor and that is secured by the rights enumerated in the declaration of rights, Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states,"notwithstanding any provision of this section, if the peace officer's portion of the judgement is uncollectable from the peace officer, **the peace officer's employer or insurer shall satisfy the full amount of the judgement or settlement**."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, “In an action brought pursuant to this section, **a court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. **In an action for injunctive relief, a court shall deem a plaintiff to have prevailed if the plaintiff's suit was a substantial factor or significant catalyst in obtaining the results sought by the litigation.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "If the peace officer did not act on a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful, **the peace officer is personally liable and may not be indemnified by the peace officer's employer for five percent of the judgment of settlement or $25,000, whichever is less."**

Yes, Arizona Statutes §§ 39-121 - 39-128 and § 38-1109, state that police disciplinary records are available to the public provided the internal investigation has closed and any appeals process has concluded. In 1998, the Arizona Court of Appeals found in Bolm v. Custodian of Records of the Tucson Police Department that while official records of discipline are public, other personnel evaluations or internal affairs investigation records may still potentially be withheld on privacy grounds.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "**Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section**. Notwithstanding any other law, **a peace officer **who, in the performance of the peace officer's duties or the failure to intervene, subjects another person or causes another person to be subjected to the deprivation of any individual right that creates a binding obligation on a government actor and that is secured by the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Rights, Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

No, the bill does not meet this standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer who, in the performance of the peace officer's duties or the failure to intervene, **subjects another person or causes another person to be subjected to the deprivation of any individual right that creates a binding obligation on a government actor and that is secured by the rights enumerated in the declaration of rights, Article II, Constitution of Arizona**, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

Yes, monetary caps on liability are unconstitutional in Arizona.

Partially, the proposed legislation addresses officer intervention, but does not require reporting an intervention. Section 1 of the bill states, "notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer who, in the performance of the peace officer's duties or the failure to intervene, subjects another person or causes another person to be subjected to the deprivation of any individual right that creates a binding obligation on a government actor and that is secured by the rights enumerated in the declaration of rights, Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states,"notwithstanding any provision of this section, if the peace officer's portion of the judgement is uncollectable from the peace officer, **the peace officer's employer or insurer shall satisfy the full amount of the judgement or settlement**."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, “In an action brought pursuant to this section, **a court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. **In an action for injunctive relief, a court shall deem a plaintiff to have prevailed if the plaintiff's suit was a substantial factor or significant catalyst in obtaining the results sought by the litigation.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "If the peace officer did not act on a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful, **the peace officer is personally liable and may not be indemnified by the peace officer's employer for five percent of the judgment of settlement or $25,000, whichever is less."**

Yes, Arizona Statutes §§ 39-121 - 39-128 and § 38-1109, state that police disciplinary records are available to the public provided the internal investigation has closed and any appeals process has concluded. In 1998, the Arizona Court of Appeals found in Bolm v. Custodian of Records of the Tucson Police Department that while official records of discipline are public, other personnel evaluations or internal affairs investigation records may still potentially be withheld on privacy grounds.