End qualified immunity in Massachusetts

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, “In an action for monetary damages brought under this section **against a law enforcement officer,** as defined in section 1 of chapter 6E, acting under color of law, **qualified immunity shall not apply **where the defendant cannot establish that the conduct was clearly lawful."

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, the current law states, "Any person whose exercise or** enjoyment of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States**, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, **has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in section 11H, may institute and prosecute in his own name and on his own behalf a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief as provided for in said section, including the award of compensatory money damages"**

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 2 of Chapter 258 caps employer liability at $100,000.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, chapter 258 of current law reads, “**Public employers may indemnify public employees, and the commonwealth shall indemnify persons holding office under the constitution, from personal financial loss, all damages and expenses, including legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 arising out of any claim, action, award, compromise, settlement or judgment by reason of an intentional tort, or by reason **of any act or omission which constitutes a violation of the civil rights of any person under any federal or state law, if such employee or official or holder of office under the constitution at the time of such intentional tort or such act or omission was acting within the scope of his official duties or employment... The **commonwealth shall indemnify members of the state police or an employee represented by state bargaining unit five, respectively, from all personal financial loss and expenses, **including but not limited to legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed one million dollars arising out of any claim, action, award, compromise, settlement or judgment resulting from any alleged intentional tort or by reason of an alleged act or failure to act which constitutes a violation of the civil rights of any person under federal or state law; provided, however, that this section shall apply only where such alleged intentional tort or alleged act or failure to act occurred within the scope of the official duties of such police officer.”

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, current law allow for law enforcement misconduct records to be available to the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) and to an officer’s current and future employers.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, “In an action for monetary damages brought under this section against a person or entity acting under color of law, **qualified immunity shall not apply where the defendant cannot establish that the conduct was clearly lawful**."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "(in reference to any person or entity) In an action for monetary damages brought under this section against a person or entity acting under color of law, **qualified immunity shall not apply where the defendant cannot establish that the conduct was clearly lawful.** Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of 7 chapter 258 with respect to indemnification of public employees."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, “In an action for monetary damages brought under this section against a person or entity acting under color of law, qualified immunity shall not apply **where the defendant cannot establish that the conduct was clearly lawful**. Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of 7 chapter 258 with respect to indemnification of public employees."

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 2 of Chapter 258 caps employer liability at $100,000.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, chapter 258 of current law reads, “**Public employers may indemnify public employees, and the commonwealth shall indemnify persons holding office under the constitution, from personal financial loss, all damages and expenses, including legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 arising out of any claim, action, award, compromise, settlement or judgment by reason of an intentional tort, or by reason **of any act or omission which constitutes a violation of the civil rights of any person under any federal or state law, if such employee or official or holder of office under the constitution at the time of such intentional tort or such act or omission was acting within the scope of his official duties or employment... The **commonwealth shall indemnify members of the state police or an employee represented by state bargaining unit five, respectively, from all personal financial loss and expenses, **including but not limited to legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed one million dollars arising out of any claim, action, award, compromise, settlement or judgment resulting from any alleged intentional tort or by reason of an alleged act or failure to act which constitutes a violation of the civil rights of any person under federal or state law; provided, however, that this section shall apply only where such alleged intentional tort or alleged act or failure to act occurred within the scope of the official duties of such police officer.”

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, current law allow for law enforcement misconduct records to be available to the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) and to an officer’s current and future employers.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states,** “(regarding all public employees) It shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought under this section that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when it was committed**. Nor shall it be a defense or immunity that the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the commonwealth were not clearly established at the time of their deprivation by the defendant, or that the state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know whether his or her conduct was lawful."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states,** “(regarding all public employees) it shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought under this section that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when it was committed.** Nor shall it be a defense or immunity that the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the commonwealth were not clearly established at the time of their deprivation by the defendant, or that the state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know whether his or her conduct was lawful."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "**Nor shall it be a defense or immunity that the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the commonwealth were not clearly established at the time of their deprivation by the defendant,** or that the state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know whether his or her conduct was lawful."

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 2 of Chapter 258 caps employer liability at $100,000.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard. The bill removes existing indemnification for violation of state or federal constitutional rights and certain torts.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, current law allow for law enforcement misconduct records to be available to the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) and to an officer’s current and future employers.