End qualified immunity in Maryland

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "**A police officer** who, under color of law, deprives an individual of or infringes on, or allows another to deprive an individual of or infringe on, an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution is liable for damages brought in a civil action against the police officer." And, "**The following are not a defense to a claim brought under this section:(i) Any of the elements of the federal doctrine of qualified immunity**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "A police officer who, under color of law, **deprives an individual of or infringes on, or allows another to deprive an individual of or infringe on, an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution** is liable for damages brought in a civil action against the police officer."

Yes, the bill meets the standard. There is no mention of caps in the legislation and state law indicates that there is no limit or cap to civil claims.

The bill partially meets the standard. There is a duty to intervene but the statute is silent or a requirement to report. Section 1 of the bill states, "A police officer who, under color of law, deprives an individual of or infringes on, **or allows another to deprive an individual of or infringe on**, an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution i**s liable for damages brought in a civil action against the police officer.**"

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "...the officer's employer **shall entirely indemnify the officer** for any judgment or settlement entered against the officer under this section; and...If the amount for which a police officer is personally responsible under subsection (e)(2) of this section is uncollectible,** the officer's employer or any available insurance shall satisfy the judgment or settlement in full.**"

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "If a suit under this section seeks injunctive relief, the **plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs if the plaintiff's suit was a significant factor** in the state taking or ceasing action regardless of whether an injunction was issued by the court in favor of the plaintiff."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "Except as provided in subsections (f) and (g) of this section, if the court determines that a police officer did not act on a good faith, reasonable belief that the actions of the officer were lawful, **the officer shall be personally liable and may not be indemnified for $25,000 or 5% of any judgment or settlement **entered against the officer under this section, whichever is less, and the remainder shall be paid by the officer's employer."

Yes, as of 2021, SB 178 ensures that public records are no longer sealed in Maryland.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, **an officer who causes physical or mental injury to another person through an act or omission committed while the officer is acting in an official capacity is: (1) Not immune from civil or criminal liability for the act or omission; and (2) Liable to the injured person for legal, equitable, and any other appropriate relief**. . .Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability under this section."

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 1 of the bill states, "Any damages awarded under this section **may not exceed $25,000**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "In and action brought under this section, **the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs to a prevailing plaintiff**. . . in an action for survivorship, the damages awarded shall include the amount of funeral expenses allowed under § 8–106 of the estates and trusts article in addition to other damages recoverable in the action.”

No, the bill does not meet the standard; however, section 2 of the bill states that, "The officer's employer may revoke an officer's pension if the officer is convicted of a criminal offense related to the conduct of the officer..."

Yes, the bill meets the standard. As of 2021, SB 178 ensures that public records are no longer sealed in Maryland.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, **"A police officer** who, under color of law, deprives an individual of or infringes on, or allows another to **deprive an individual of or infringe on, an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution** **is liable for damages brought in a civil action against the police officer."** And, "The following are not a defense to a claim brought under this section:(i) Any of the elements of the federal doctrine of qualified immunity"

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, " A police officer who, under color of law, **deprives an individual of or infringes on, or allows another to deprive an individual of or infringe on, an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution** is liable for damages brought in a civil action against the police officer."

Yes, the bill meets the standard. There is no mention of caps in the legislation and state law indicates that there is no limit or cap to civil claims.

The bill partially meets the standard. There is a duty to intervene but the statute is silent or a requirement to report. Section 1 of the bill states, "A police officer who, under color of law, deprives an individual of or infringes on, **or allows another to deprive an individual of or infringe on,** an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution is liable for damages brought in a civil action against the police officer."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "...**the officer's employer shall entirely indemnify the officer** for any judgment or **settlement **entered against the officer under this section; and...If the amount for which a police officer is personally responsible under subsection (e)(2) of this section is uncollectible, t**he officer's employer or any available insurance shall satisfy the judgment or settlement in full**."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "If a suit under this section seeks injunctive relief, **the plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs **if the plaintiff's suit was a significant factor in the state taking or ceasing action regardless of whether an injunction was issued by the court in favor of the plaintiff."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "(2) Except as provided in subsections (f) and (g) of this section, if the court determines that a police officer did not act on a good faith, reasonable belief that the actions of the officer were lawful, **the officer shall be personally liable and may not be indemnified for $25,000 or 5% of any judgment or settlement entered against the officer under this section, whichever is less, and the remainder shall be paid by the officer's employer**."

Yes, the bill meets the standard. As of 2021, SB 178 ensures that public records are no longer sealed in Maryland.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "**An officer who subjects or causes to be subjected any individual to the deprivation of any rights, **privileges, or immunities secured by the Maryland Constitution or the U.S. Constitution shall be liable for damages brought in an action against the officer. **Qualified Immunity is not a defense to liability or an immunity from suit under this section.**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "An officer who subjects or causes to be subjected any individual to the **deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Maryland Constitution or the U.S. Constitution** shall be liable for damages brought in an action against the officer. Qualified Immunity is not a defense to liability or an immunity from suit under this section."

Yes, the bill meets the standard. There is no mention of caps in the legislation and state law indicates that there is no limit or cap to civil claims.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "In an action brought under this section, **any final judgement or settlement against the officer or the officer's employer or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed shall be entered and satisfied by the officer's employer **or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "In an action brought under this section, **the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs to a prevailing plaintiff**. Each settlement agreement for an action brought under this section shall provide that the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "The officer's employer or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed **shall seek reimbursement from the officer for 5% or $25,000, whichever is less**, from any final judgement or settlement entered against the officer's employer or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed if: (1) the officer is found to have violated another individual's rights under the state or U.S. Constitution; and (2) the action brought against the officer's employer or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed is related to the officer's violation and final judgement or settlement." The bill also states that "**the Maryland police training and standards commission shall: review any case brought under this section in which an officer or officer's employer was held liable; or entered into a settlement agreement; and determine whether the officer's certification to work in the state should be revoked.**"

Yes, the bill meets the standard. As of 2021, SB 178 ensures that public records are no longer sealed in Maryland.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "**A police officer** who, under color of law, **deprives an individual of or infringes on, or allows another to deprive an individual of or infringe on, an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution is liable for damages brought in a civil action against the police officer.**" And, "The following are not a defense to a claim brought under this section:(i) Any of the elements of the federal doctrine of qualified immunity"

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "A police officer who, under color of law, **deprives an individual of or infringes on, or allows another to deprive an individual of or infringe on, an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution** is liable for damages brought in a civil action against the police officer."

Yes, the bill meets the standard. There is no mention of caps in the legislation and state law indicates that there is no limit or cap to civil claims.

The bill partially meets the standard. There is a duty to intervene but the statute is silent or a requirement to report. Section 1 of the bill states, "A police officer who, under color of law, deprives an individual of or infringes on, **or allows another to deprive an individual of or infringe on, an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Constitution **is liable for damages brought in a civil action against the police officer."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states,** "...the officer's employer shall entirely indemnify the officer for any judgment or settlement entered against the officer under this section**; and...If the amount for which a police officer is personally responsible under subsection (e)(2) of this section is uncollectible, t**he officer's employer or any available insurance shall satisfy the judgment or settlement in full**."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, " If a suit under this section seeks injunctive relief, **the plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs **if the plaintiff's suit was a significant factor in the state taking or ceasing action regardless of whether an injunction was issued by the court in favor of the plaintiff."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "(2) Except as provided in subsections (f) and (g) of this section, if the court determines that a police officer did not act on a good faith, reasonable belief that the actions of the officer were lawful, **the officer shall be personally liable and may not be indemnified for $25,000 or 5% of any judgment** or settlement entered against the officer under this section, whichever is less, and the remainder shall be paid by the officer's employer."

Yes, the bill meets the standard. As of 2021, SB 178 ensures that public records are no longer sealed in Maryland.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "**An officer** who subjects or causes to be subjected any individual to the **deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the by the Maryland Constitution or the U.S. constitution shall be liable** for damages brought in an action against the officer. Qualified Immunity is not a defense to liability or an immunity from suit under this section."

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "An officer who subjects or causes to be subjected any individual to the** deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Maryland Constitution or the U.S. Constitution **shall be liable for damages brought in an action against the officer. Qualified Immunity is not a defense to liability or an immunity from suit under this section."

Yes, the bill meets the standard. There is no mention of caps in the legislation and state law indicates that there is no limit or cap to civil claims.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "In an action brought under this section, **any final judgement or settlement against the officer or the officer's employer or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed shall be entered and satisfied by the officer's employer or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed**."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "In an action brought under this section, t**he court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs to a prevailing plaintiff.** Each settlement agreement for an action brought under this section shall provide that the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs."

Yes, section 1 of the bill states, "The officer's employer or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed** shall seek reimbursement from the officer for 5% or $25,000, whichever is less**, from any final judgement or settlement entered against the officer's employer or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed if: (1) the officer is found to have violated another individual's rights under the state or U.S. Constitution; and (2) **the action brought against the officer's employer or the local jurisdiction where the officer is employed is related to the officer's violation and final judgement or settlement." The bill also states that "the Maryland police training an**d **standards commission shall: review any case brought under this section in which an officer or officer's employer was held liable; or entered into a settlement agreement; and determine whether the officer's certification to work in the state should be revoked." **

Yes, the bill meets the standard. As of 2021, SB 178 ensures that public records are no longer sealed in Maryland.