End qualified immunity in Vermont

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Vermont keeps records and names private unless a state board imposes discipline, in which case the names and details are then public. Rutland Herald v. City of Rutland ruled that if public interest outweighs the officers’ privacy interest, then they are made public. The bill states, “**Each law enforcement agency shall maintain a record of all final judgments and settlements paid by the law enforcement agency for court claims related to alleged violations of constitutional rights established under the Constitution of the State of Vermont.** All judgments, settlements, and their underlying complaints are subject to public disclosure unless an exemption applies pursuant to the Vermont Public Records Act. Any record disclosed shall include the name of the law enforcement agency and the monetary amount paid pursuant to the judgment or settlement.“

Yes, the bill states, "**An individual injured or damaged by the commission or omission of any act of a law enforcement officer acting under authority of the State, or within the scope of authority of a law enforcement agency, that violates the individual’s rights guaranteed under a provision of the Constitution of the State of Vermont that provides a private right of action, prescribed by Vermont statute, or created by Vermont common law, may bring an action for damages or equitable relief against the law enforcement officer... **A**n action brought pursuant to this section is not subject to common law doctrines of immunity as a defense to liability.**.."

No, the bill does not meet the standard. The bill states, "An individual injured or damaged by the commission or omission of any act of a **law enforcement officer** acting under authority of the State, or within the scope of authority of a law enforcement agency, that violates the individual’s rights guaranteed under a provision of the Constitution of the State of Vermont that provides a private right of action, prescribed by Vermont statute, or created by Vermont common law, may bring an action for damages or equitable relief against the **law enforcement officer.**.."

Yes, the bill states, "An individual injured or damaged by the commission or omission of any act of a law enforcement officer acting under authority of the State, or within the scope of authority of a law enforcement agency, **that violates the individual’s rights guaranteed under a provision of the Constitution of the State of Vermont **that provides a private right of action, prescribed by Vermont statute, or created by Vermont common law, may bring an action for damages or equitable relief against the law enforcement officer... An action brought pursuant to this section is not subject to common law doctrines of immunity as a defense to liability..."

Yes, the bill does not mention monetary caps and existing Vermont law does not have caps.

No, the bill does not meet the standard.

Yes, the bill states, "Notwithstanding the provisions of V.S.A. chapter 29, chapter 189 of this title, or V.S.A. chapter 55,** a law enforcement agency shall indemnify its law enforcement officer for any liability incurred, and for any judgment or settlement entered against the law enforcement officer, for claims arising pursuant to this section,** except that if the law enforcement agency determines that the law enforcement officer did not act in good faith and under reasonable belief that the action was lawful, then the law enforcement officer is personally liable and shall not be indemnified by the law enforcement agency for five percent of the judgment or settlement or $25,000.00, whichever is less. (f) **Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, to the extent that a law enforcement officer’s portion of a judgment or settlement is uncollectible from the law enforcement officer, the law enforcement agency or the law enforcement agency’s insurance shall satisfy any such uncollected amount of the judgment or settlement.**"

No, the bill uses the word "may" which is not declarative enough. It states, "**A court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any action brought under this section in which the plaintiff substantially prevailed. When a judgment is entered in favor of a defendant, a court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred to the defendant for defending any claims the court finds frivolous**."

Yes, the bill states, "Notwithstanding the provisions of V.S.A. chapter 29, chapter 189 of this title, or V.S.A. chapter 55, **a law enforcement agency shall indemnify its law enforcement officer for any liability incurred, and for any judgment or settlement entered against the law enforcement officer,** for claims arising pursuant to this section, except that if the law enforcement agency determines that the law enforcement officer did not act in good faith and under reasonable belief that the action was lawful, then the law enforcement officer is personally liable and shall not be indemnified by the law enforcement agency for five percent of the judgment or settlement or $25,000.00, whichever is less. (f) **Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, to the extent that a law enforcement officer’s portion of a judgment or settlement is uncollectable from the law enforcement officer, the law enforcement agency or the law enforcement agency’s insurance shall satisfy any such uncollected amount of the judgment or settlement**."

No, the bill does not meet the standard and Vermont does not guarantee law enforcement records are public.