HB 1025 is similar to previous proposals to increase legal liability for actions by police officers.
HB 1025, sponsored by Rep. My-Linh Thai (D–Bellevue), creates a private cause of action against police officers
or their employers for injury of a person or property when the officer was acting under color of law, but in violation of state law or the state constitution. The bill also:
- Makes other officers liable if they failed to prevent or aided in causing the injury.
- Makes the police officer’s employer vicariously liable for the conduct if the injury was caused in the scope of the officer’s employment.
- Makes the employer independently liable if the officer “substantially complied” with their employer’s procedures, policies, or training, or the action was approved by a superior, unless the training was provided by the state Criminal
Justice Training Center or the policy was model guidance from the state Attorney General.
- Makes the officer’s employer independently liable for failure to use reasonable care in hiring, training, retaining, supervising, or disciplining the officer, unless the employer can show it was not able to discipline the officer due to binding
arbitration.
The bill explicitly ends qualified immunity by stating that it is no defense that the rights the plaintiff sues under were not “clearly established” at the time of the officer’s conduct. City police currently have a legal immunity known
as “qualified immunity” that protects them and their cities from civil actions for injuries or violations of a plaintiff’s rights unless the right was “clearly established” according to the courts. Under the bill, it
is also no defense if the officer or employer couldn’t have known whether their conduct was lawful or not. The bill also permits a plaintiff to be awarded actual damages plus attorney’s fees and costs, and sets a statute of limitations
of three years.
AWC is opposed to HB 1025 because of the drastic increase in liability it would bring down on cities. Cities already often already feel pressure to settle lawsuits regardless of the merits because the cost of litigating is so expensive.
The bill will likely incentivize people to file a claim regardless of the merits of a case because of the high likelihood of receiving a monetary settlement. The rise in cases against cities and officers will increase the amount of settlements cities
would pay out, and increase the risk of massive attorney fees for cases lost at trial. The increased liability will also contribute to the increased cost of liability insurance, which is quickly becoming a major expense to many cities. AWC opposed a similar bill last year for many of the same reasons.
While AWC still opposes the bill, we would like to thank Rep. Thai and the bill proponents for making important efforts to reach out to stakeholders and for working with cities to address some of our concerns during the interim. Unfortunately, not enough
substantive changes have been made at this point to end our opposition.
Dates to remember
HB 1025 is scheduled for public hearing in the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, January 25 at 8 am.