End qualified immunity in Virginia

Yes, section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "**Any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities granted to such person under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth, shall be liable to the injured party for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and equitable relief...Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability imposed by this section**."

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "**Any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities granted to such person under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth, shall be liable to the injured party for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and equitable relief**

Yes, section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "**Any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities granted to such person under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth, shall be liable to the injured party for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and equitable relief**"

Yes, section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "**Sovereign immunity and any other statutory immunities or limitations on liability or damages shall not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section**."

The bill partially meets the standard. Section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "**Any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities granted to such person under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth, shall be liable to the injured party for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and equitable relief**". There is no reporting requirement mentioned.

No, the bill does not meet the standard. A third party is not always liable for injuries of damages. Section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "Any public or private entity that employs or contracts for the services of a law-enforcement officer, as defined by § 9.1-101, whether such employment or agency is with or without pay, owes a duty of reasonable care to third parties in its hiring, supervision, training, retention, and use of law-enforcement officers under its employment or contract. **Any such entity may be liable to a third party for any injuries or damages sustained by the third party caused, in whole or in part, by a breach of this duty." **

No, the bill does not meet the standard because the court _may_ award attorney fees but it is not mandatory. Section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states "If the plaintiff prevails in such an action, in addition to any monetary or injunctive relief, **the court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs.**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Law enforcement misconduct records are kept secret in Virginia. (Section 2.2-3705.1 of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.)

Yes, section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "**Any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities granted to such person under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth, shall be liable to the injured party for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and equitable relief...Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability imposed by this section**."

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "**Any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities granted to such person under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth, shall be liable to the injured party for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and equitable relief...**Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability imposed by this section**.**"

Yes, section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "Any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, **any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities granted to such person under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth, shall be liable** to the injured party for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and equitable relief...Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability imposed by this section**.**"

Yes, section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "**Sovereign immunity and any limitations on liability or damages shall not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section**."

The bill partially meets the standard. Section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states "Any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, **including failing to intervene**, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities granted to such person under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth, shall be liable to the injured party for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and equitable relief." This does not include a reporting element.

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any public or private entity that employs or contract for the services of a law-enforcement officer **shall indemnify its law-enforcement officers for any liability incurred by such law-enforcement officer and for any judgment or settlement entered against such law-enforcement officer for claims arising pursuant to the provisions of this section.** **However, if such employer determines that such law-enforcement officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that any action or failure to act was lawful, such law-enforcement officer shall be held personally liable and shall not be indemnified by his employer for five percent of the judgment or settlement or $25,000, whichever is less.**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard because the court _may_ award attorney fees but it is not mandatory. Section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states "If the plaintiff prevails in such an action, in addition to any monetary or injunctive relief, **the court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs.**"

Yes, section 8.01-42.6 of the bill states, "**However, if such employer determines that such law-enforcement officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that any action or failure to act was lawful, such law-enforcement officer shall be held personally liable and shall not be indemnified by his employer for five percent of the judgment or settlement or $25,000, whichever is less.**"

No, the bill does not meet the standard. Law enforcement misconduct records are kept secret in Virginia. (Section 2.2-3705.1 of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.)