End qualified immunity in Colorado

Yes, section 13-21-131 of bill states, "A peace officer, as defined in section 24-31-901 (3), who, under color of law, subjects or causes to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors secured by the bill of rights, Article II of the state constitution, is liable to the injured party... 2)(b) Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section."

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 13-21-131 of bill states, "A peace officer, as defined in section 24-31-901 (3), who, under color of law, subjects or causes to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors secured by the bill of rights, Article II of the state constitution, is liable to the injured party... 2)(b) Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section."

Yes, section 13-21-131 of bill states, "Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees do not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section. The “Colorado Governmental Immunity Act”, Article 10 of Title 24, does not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section."

Partially. The bill includes that officers who fail to intervene are civilly liable, but are not required to report such instances. Section 13-21-131 of bill states, "A peace officer, as defined in section 24-31-901 (3), who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene... is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

Yes, section 13-21-131 of the bill states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a peace officer's employer shall indemnify its peace officers for any liability incurred by the peace officer and for any judgement or settlement entered against the peace officer for claims arising pursuant to this section; except that, if the peace officer's employer determines that the officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful, then the peace officer is personally liable and shall not be indemnified by the peace officer's employer for five percent of the judgement or settlement or twenty-five thousand dollars, whichever is less. Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, if the peace officer's portion of the judgement is uncollectible from the peace officer, the peace officer's employer or insurance shall satisfy the full amount of the judgement or settlement. A public entity does not have to indemnify a peace officer if the peace officer was convicted of a criminal violation for the conduct from which the claim arises."

Yes, section 13-21-131 of bill states, "In any action brought pursuant to this section, a court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. In actions 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. When a judgment is entered in favor of a defendant, the court may award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the defendant for defending any claims the court finds frivolous." The same section also states, "Article II of the state constitution is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

Yes, section 13-21-131 of bill states, "(4)(a) . . . except that, if the peace officer’s employer determines on a case-by-case basis that the officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful, then the peace officer is personally liable and shall not be indemnified by the peace officer’s employer for five percent of the judgment or settlement or twenty-five thousand dollars, whichever is less."

No, the bill does not meet this standard.

Yes, section 13-21-131 of the bill states, "(1) (a) A person or public entity that, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Colorado constitution, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief." The same section of the bill also states, "(3)(b) Neither qualified immunity, nor a defendant's good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of his or her conduct, is a defense to liability pursuant to this section."

Yes, section 13-21-131 of bill states, "(1) (a) A person or public entity that, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Colorado constitution, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief." The same section of the bill also states, "(3)(b) Neither qualified immunity, nor a defendant's good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of his or her conduct, is a defense to liability pursuant to this section."

Yes, section 13-21-131 of the bill states, "(1) (a) A person or public entity that, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Colorado constitution, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief." The same section of the bill also states, "(3)(b) Neither qualified immunity, nor a defendant's good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of his or her conduct, is a defense to liability pursuant to this section."

Yes, section 13-21-131 of the bill states, "(3)(a) Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees do not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section."

No, the bill does not meet this standard.

Yes, section 13-21-131 of the bill states, "(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public entity shall indemnify its public employee for any liability incurred by the employee and for any judgment entered against the employee for claims arising under this section; except that a public entity does not have to indemnify a public employee if the employee was convicted of a criminal violation for the conduct from which the claim arises."

Yes, section 13-21-131 of the bill states "(b) In any action brought pursuant to this section, a court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. When a judgment is entered in favor of a defendant, the court may award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the defendant only for defending any claims the court finds frivolous."

No, the bill does not meet this standard.

No, the bill does not meet this standard.