End qualified immunity in Missouri

Yes. The proposed legislation makes peace officers liable and bans the use of qualified or other immunities as a defense. It states, "506.450. 1. A peace officer, as defined under section 590.010, who, under color of law, deprives any individual of his or her constitutional rights shall be liable to such individual for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief. 2. (1) Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees shall not apply to claims brought under this section. (2) Qualified immunity shall not be a defense to liability under this section.

No. The proposed legislation only cites law enforcement.

Yes. The proposed legislation makes a peace officer liable for violation of an individual's constitutional rights. It is not specific about state or federal constitutional rights. It states, "506.450. 1. A peace officer, as defined under section 590.010, who, under color of law, deprives any individual of his or her constitutional rights shall be liable to such individual for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief."

Yes. The proposed legislation states, "Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees shall not apply to claims brought under this section."

No. There is no mention of failure to intervene.

Yes. The proposed legislation requires the employer to indemnify employees. It 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 judgment or settlement entered against the peace officer for claims arising under 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, 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. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, if the peace officer's portion of the judgment is uncollectable from the peace officer, the peace officer's employer or insurance shall satisfy the full amount of the judgment or settlement. A public entity is not required to indemnify a peace officer if the peace officer was convicted of a criminal violation for the conduct from which the claim arises."

Yes. The proposed legislation states, "3. In any action brought under 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."

Yes. The proposed legislation allows the employer to make the employee financially liable, but there are no other material professional consequences. It states, "4. 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 judgment or settlement entered against the peace officer for claims arising under 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, 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. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, if the peace officer's portion of the judgment is uncollectable from the peace officer, the peace officer's employer or insurance shall satisfy the full amount of the judgment or settlement. A public entity is not required to indemnify a peace officer if the peace officer was convicted of a criminal violation for the conduct from which the claim arises."

No. There is no mention of public disclosure.