End qualified immunity in Texas

Yes, section 135.0002 of the bill states, "A person may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, **against a peace officer who, under the color of law, deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution**... Notwithstanding any other law, **qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter.**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 135.0002 of the bill states, "A person may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, **against a peace officer who, under the color of law, deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution**... Notwithstanding any other law, qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter."

Yes, section 135.0002 of the bill states, "A person may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, **against a peace officer who, under the color of law, deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution**... Notwithstanding any other law, **qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter.**"

Yes, section 135.0003 of the bill states, "**Notwithstanding any other law, a statutory immunity or limitation on liability, damages, or attorney’s fees does not apply to an action brought under this chapter.**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 135.0005 of the bill states ". . . **a public entity shall indemnify a peace officer employed by the entity for liability incurred by and a judgment imposed against the officer in an action brought under this chapter**."

Yes, section 135.0004 of the bill states, “... (a) In an action brought under this chapter, **a court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff**.”

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the stadard.

Yes, section 135.0002 of the bill states, "A person may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, **against a peace officer who, under the color of law, deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution**... **Notwithstanding any other law, qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action **brought under this chapter."

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 135.0002 of the bill states, "A person may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, **against a peace officer **who, under the color of law, deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution... Notwithstanding any other law, qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter."

Yes, section 135.0002 of the bill states, "A person may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, **against a peace officer who, under the color of law, deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution**... **Notwithstanding any other law, qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action **brought under this chapter."

Yes, section 135.0003 of the bill states, "Notwithstanding any other law, a **statutory immunity or limitation on liability, damages, or attorney’s fees does not apply to an action brought under this chapter.**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 135.0005 of the bill states, "...**a public entity shall indemnify a peace officer employed by the entity for liability incurred by and a judgment imposed against the officer in an action brought under this chapter.**"

Yes, section 135.0004 of the bill states, “... (a) In an action brought under this chapter**, a court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff.**”

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, teh bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 135.0002 of the bill states, "A person may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, **against a peace officer who, under the color of law, deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution... Notwithstanding any other law, qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter.**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 135.0002 of the bill states, "A person may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, **against a peace officer who, under the color of law, deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution... **Notwithstanding any other law, qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter."

Yes, section 135.0002 of the bill states, "A person may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, **against a peace officer who, under the color of law, deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution... Notwithstanding any other law, qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter.**"

Yes, section 135.0003 of the bill states, "**Notwithstanding any other law, a statutory immunity or limitation on liability, damages, or attorney’s fees does not apply to an action brought under this chapte**r."

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes., section 135.0005 of the bill states, "... **a public entity shall indemnify a peace officer employed by the entity for liability incurred by and a judgment imposed against the officer in an action brought under this chapter**."

Yes, section 135.0004 of the bill states, “... (a) In an action brought under this chapter, a** court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff.”**

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, section 117.0003 of the bill states, "**An individual may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, in a court of this state against a public entity on the basis that a peace officer under the entity's employment, by an act or omission under the color of law, deprived the individual of or caused the individual to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity under the laws or constitution of this state or the United States**... **A defendant in an action brought under this chapter may not assert as a defense or basis for immunity..**. "

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 117.0003 of the bill states, "An individual may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief,** in a court of this state against a public entity on the basis that a peace officer** under the entity's employment, by an act or omission under the color of law, deprived the individual of or caused the individual to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity under the laws or constitution of this state or the United States.

Yes, section 117.003 of the bill states, "**An individual may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, in a court of this state against a public entity on the basis that a peace officer under the entity's employment, by an act or omission under the color of law, deprived the individual of or caused the individual to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity under the laws or constitution of this state or the United States**

Yes, section 117.004 of the bill states, "**Notwithstanding any other law, a statutory immunity or limitation on liability, damages, or attorney's fees does not apply to an action brought under this chapter.**”

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, the bill makes the government employer the defendant in any suit, although the officer is joint and severally liable. Section 117.003 of the bill states, “**An individual may bring an action for any appropriate relief, including legal or equitable relief, in a court of this state against a public entity on the basis that a peace officer under the entity's employment, **by an act or omission under the color of law, deprived the individual of or caused the individual to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity under the laws or constitution of this state or the United States...**A peace officer may not be found financially liable in an action brought under this chapter for a deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity under the laws or constitution of this state or the United States**... A** defendant who is found liable in an action brought under this chapter is jointly and severally liable for damages, attorney's fees, and costs awarded by the court.**

Yes, section 117.008 of the bill states, “... (a)** In an action brought under this chapter, a court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff.**”

The bill partially meets the standard. Peace officers cannot be financially liable alone, but are “joint and severally liable,” and the legislation does establish just cause for termination in a successful suit. Section 117.007 of the bill states, "A peace officer **may not be found financially liable in an action brought under this chapter for a deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity under the laws or constitution of this state or the United States**." But, section 117.010 states, "(a) Notwithstanding any other law, contract, or agreement,** a public entity may terminate a contract or agreement with or the employment of a peace officer if the court finds in an action brought under this chapter that the officer deprived a claimant of a right, privilege, or immunity under the laws or constitution of this state or the United States**. (b) A public entity's termination of a contract or agreement with or the employment of a peace officer does not affect the entity's liability in an action brought under this chapter."

Yes, section 117.011 of the bill states, " **All petitions, judgments, settlements, and consent decrees related to an action brought under this chapter are public information subject to disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code**."

Yes, section 106A.001 of the bill states, "(a) **A peace officer employed by a local government or the State of Texas who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief.**.. Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees do not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section...**Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section**."

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 106A.001 of the bill states, "(a) **A peace officer employed by a local government or the State of Texas **who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief...

Yes, section 106A.001 of the bill states, "(a) **A peace officer employed by a local government or the State of Texas who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief.**.. Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees do not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section...**Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section**."

Yes, section 106A.001 of the bill states, "(b)** Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees do not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section**."

The bill partially meets the standard. Section 106A.001 of the bill states," A peace officer employed by a local government or the State of Texas who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected,** including failing to intervene,** any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors** is liable **to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief.”

Yes, section 106A.001 of the bill 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 pursuant to 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**, then 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 to the contrary, **if the peace officer's portion of the judgment is uncollectible from the peace officer, the peace officer's employer or insurance shall satisfy the full amount of the judgment or settlement**. A public entity does not have to indemnify a peace officer if the peace officer was convicted of a criminal violation for the conduct from which the claim arises."

Yes, section 106A.001 of the bill states, “... In any action brought pursuant to 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. When a judgment is entered in favor of a defendant, the court may award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the defendant for defending any claims the court finds frivolous.”

Yes, section 106A.001 of the bill 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 pursuant to 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, then 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**."

No, the bill does not meet the standard.