End qualified immunity in Maryland

Yes. The proposed legislation states, "An officer who subjects or causes to be subjected any individual to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the state or 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 proposed legislation only cites law enforcement.

Yes. The proposed legislation states, "An officer who subjects or causes to be subjected any individual to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the state or 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. There is no mention of caps in the legislation and state law indicates that there is no limit or cap to civil claims.

No. There is no mention of failure to intervene in the drafted legislation.

Yes. The proposed legislation 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. The proposed legislation 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. The proposed legislation 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 urisdiction 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 legislation 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. As of 2021, SB 178 ensures that public records are no longer sealed in Maryland.

Yes. The proposed legislation 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 proposed legislation only cites law enforcement.

No. The proposed legislation addresses acts and omissions but does not cite civil rights.

No. The proposed legislation has caps on damages. The legislation states, "ANY DAMAGES AWARDED UNDER THIS SECTION MAY NOT EXCEED $25,000."

No. There is no mention of failure to intervene.

No. The proposed legislation does not ensure that victims are compensated the full amount awarded.

Yes. The proposed legislation 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 proposed legislation includes a provision that the state may sue individual officers for damages, in addition to, "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 THAT IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE OFFICER UNDER § 5–1302 OF THIS SUBTITLE." However, this pertains to criminal offenses.

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