Is the Police Insurance Amendment legal?

Answer

Attorneys helped craft the amendment to ensure its legality. But Minneapolis city officials deprived voters of the right to decide the issue by claiming it wasn't legal. After a lengthy legal fight, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that our Police Insurance Amendment should not be on the Minneapolis ballot. 

Under state law, the city is required to cover payouts resulting from lawsuits against police officers in cases where the harm is purely accidental and the police officer was acting within their role and duties. If the city is at fault due to illegal policies, poor training, or poor supervision, the city is also required to protect the officer from legal responsibility and to pay damages.

"Contrary to misleading statements disseminated by the Police Federation, the city is NOT required by any law to cover damages from lawsuits for police officers when the officer knowingly and intentionally violated the law or police policies."

In these situations, the police officers could be liable and the City is under no obligation to defend the officers or pay damages resulting from legal actions. To illustrate this point, Minneapolis has declined to cover Police Union President Bob Kroll because he was determined not to be acting within the scope of his employment in a brutality incident with another officer.

By definition, misconduct (intentional violation of law and/or policy) falls outside the scope of employment. There is no moral, legal or union contract obligation that the city continue to pay out millions of dollars a year in bailouts for rogue officers. 


Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.