Page 20 - FOP August 2021

Qualified immunity vs. indemnification
There has been a lot of talk lately about the legal concept of qualified immunity. Like chil- dren on the playground, the movement and
the defund the police crowd have found something shiny yet are clueless as to
what it is. Qualified immunity does not
shield police officers from responsibil-
ity or accountability, it acts as a needed protection by which we run an ordered and
safe society. While the movement is not nec- essarily in favor of an ordered and safe society,
fortunately, the courts are — so far, that is.
Qualified immunity is a legal concept used as a defense
by law enforcement officers when named as defendants in a lawsuit. Qualified immunity applies only to civil charges that are levied against the individual officer, not suits against the governmental agency or, in our case, the City of Chica- go. Qualified immunity protects the individual officer from civil liability if the officer believed in good faith that his or her conduct was lawful and the conduct was objectively rea- sonable. In a typical case, Johnny the Jerk will point a gun at the police and thereby the officer believes that death or great bodily harm has been threatened, triggering a deadly-force scenario requiring the officer to discharge his or her weap- on. Johnny will file a §1983 civil rights lawsuit in which he
will name the City of Chicago and the officers as defendants. Assuming the officer followed the use-of-force requirements in the General Order and all appropriate rules and laws, the officer should not have any civil liability. Simply put, the City of Chicago would still have liability for the officer’s actions if it was found that the force used was excessive. The officer would not have civil liabil-
ity due to the fact that he or she acted in good faith. However, there is a legal concept known as punitive damages that a jury could levy individually against the of- ficer in addition to damages being awarded against the City itself. Punitive damages may be awarded under §1983 when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil mo- tive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indiffer- ence to the federally protected rights of others, or if it is found that the officer was not acting in good faith and acted puni- tively. Punitive damages are very problematic to police offi- cers, as that is what allows the plaintiff to actually get dam- ages directly against the police officer. As such, police officers are not totally immune from liability, as it is qualified. The children of the movement must have lost their dictionary, as the title itself tells us that immunity is qualified and thus not absolute. Nobody ever accused them of possessing advanced
intelligence.
The next concept that is baked into this process is indem-
TIM GRACE
The Law Firm of Grace & Thompson Specializes in Representing Chicago Police Officers
James E. Thompson, Partner JThompson@ggtlegal.com
Timothy M. Grace, Partner connorgrace@aol.com
We pride ourselves in maintaining a small-firm feel by treating each case with care and consideration.
Seasoned trial attorneys representing Chicago Police Officers in matters before the Chicago Police Board, Internal Affairs, COPA, Inspector General, and Civil and Criminal Courts.
The Law Firm of Grace & Thompson also provides professional legal services in other areas:
• Personal Injury
• Divorce
• Criminal and Civil Defense Litigation
Contact us today for a free consultation! 312-943-0600 • GGTlegal.com
311 W. Superior Street, Suite 215 • Chicago, IL 60654
20 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ AUGUST 2021