End qualified immunity in Hawaii

Yes. The proposed legislation states, "(a) A law enforcement officer, as defined in section 28-151, who subjects or causes to be subjected, including by failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights arising under the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief. (b) Sovereign immunity, statutory immunities, and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees shall not apply to claims brought pursuant to this chapter. Chapter 662 shall not apply to claims brought pursuant to this chapter. (c) Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section."

No. The proposed legislation does not end qualified immunity for all public employees.

Yes. The proposed legislation states, "A law enforcement officer, as defined in section 28-151, who subjects or causes to be subjected, including by failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights arising under the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

Yes. The proposed legislation removes statutory limitations on damages. It states, "Sovereign immunity, statutory immunities, and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees shall not apply to claims brought pursuant to this chapter. Chapter 662 shall not apply to claims brought pursuant to this chapter."

Partially. The proposed legislation creates liability for officers who fail to intervene, but does not require reporting. It states, "(a) A law enforcement officer, as defined in section 28-151, who subjects or causes to be subjected, including by failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights arising under the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

Yes. The proposed legislation states, (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the law enforcement officer shall be personally liable and shall not be indemnified by a public entity for at least five per cent or $100,000 of the judgment or settlement, whichever is less, unless the law enforcement officer acted upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful. If the judgment or any portion of the judgment is uncollectible from the law enforcement officer, the law enforcement officer's employer shall satisfy the full amount of the judgment or settlement; provided that the employer shall have a right of contribution against the law enforcement officer for any amount not subject to indemnification. A public entity shall not indemnify the officer if the officer was convicted of a crime related to conduct from which the claim arises. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require indemnification for law enforcement officers."

Yes. The proposed legislation removes statutory limitations on attorney’s fees and costs, but does not specify that these are separate from any awarded damages. It states, "(b) Sovereign immunity, statutory immunities, and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees shall not apply to claims brought pursuant to this chapter. Chapter 662 shall not apply to claims brought pursuant to this chapter." AND "(d) In any action brought pursuant to this section, a court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff, including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses, if they are a prevailing party. 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 claims the court finds frivolous."

Yes. The proposed legislation states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the law enforcement officer shall be personally liable and shall not be indemnified by a public entity for at least five per cent or $100,000 of the judgment or settlement, whichever is less, unless the law enforcement officer acted upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful. If the judgment or any portion of the judgment is uncollectible from the law enforcement officer, the law enforcement officer’s employer shall satisfy the full amount of the judgment or settlement; provided that the employer shall have a right of contribution against the law enforcement officer for any amount not subject to indemnification."

Yes. The proposed legislation requires that, "Any political subdivision of the State that employs a law enforcement officer who incurs liability under this chapter, whether in the form of judgment or settlement entered against the law enforcement officer for claims arising pursuant to this chapter, shall publicly disclose: (1) The name of any law enforcement officer or officers whose actions or conduct led to the judgment or settlement; (2) The amount of the judgment or settlement and the portion of the judgment or settlement, if any, indemnified by the political subdivision of the State; (3) Any internal disciplinary actions taken against the law enforcement officer or officers whose action or conduct led to the judgment or settlement; and (4) Any criminal charges brought against the law enforcement officer or officers for the actions or conduct that led to the judgment or settlement."