86

Even if you had grounds for a lawsuit, you could not make it come out of the officer’s pocket. Under Chapter 4.64 of the Seattle Code, the City of Seattle is generally required to defend and indemnify city employees who are sued for doing their job. If you sue a police officer, the city pays his lawyer; if you win or if the city decides your claim is ...


20

I'll go ahead and add in a federal level legal principle on top of all of the local and state laws that stand in your way: qualified immunity. In short, you'd have to prove that the officer was plainly incompetent. Police officers who have accidentally shot people they were intending to tase have been granted immunity under the various statutes being ...


16

You could sue the officer. You could even make it a federal suit under Section 1983 (see the text of the law). However, to prevail, you would have to show that the officer knew that you were doing nothing illegal, or that any reasonable officer would have known this. If a reasonable, even an ordinarily careless, officer might well have believed that you were ...


6

Sovereign immunity is the wrong doctrine Sovereign immunity relates to the inability of a sovereign or state to commit a legal wrong and immunity from civil or criminal liability. However, it applies to immunity under domestic law - Nazis were tried before Allied military tribunals. Hitler, had he survived would have been tried at Nuremburg along with the ...


6

Is a government official personally liable when, within the sphere of his or her official responsibility, they violate a person's constitutional rights? Some officials “whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suits for damages [...] including certain officials of the Executive Branch, such as prosecutors and ...


6

A president can be personally sued, and does not enjoy universal immunity while in office, see Clinton v. Jones, 520 US 681 – in that case, Clinton was represented by private counsel. There are differences between that case and the instant hypothetical, the most prominent being whether such statements might be shielded because of executive privilege. The ...


5

The statute in question (which is unusual and not part of the law in most U.S. states) is as follows: (a) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted;  ...


4

There are two kinds of immunity: absolute and qualified. Absolute immunity is limited to the official discretionary acts of judges, prosecutors in the litigation process (but not in the investigatory process) and the President. And, in the cases of judges and prosecutors this is only immunity from civil liability and not criminal liability. Thus, for ...


4

Most of the answers are being too specific, vicarious liability would apply to the officer just as it does with any other employer. The employer is responsible for the employees incompetence, not the employee. As for your philosophical objections to the officer not paying, that is in fact why vicarious liability is so common and applies in this case. ...


3

No. A governor could not be held liable in a lawsuit on those grounds. Governors in every U.S. state have governmental immunity from liability in tort (and a lawsuit for wrongful death is a kind of tort lawsuit) for their official actions, and there is no U.S. state in which this kind of lawsuit would fall within an exception to that governmental immunity. ...


3

Only "legislative acts" give rise to legislative immunity. Perhaps surprisingly, being a legislator is neither necessary nor sufficient for the privilege to apply. A defendant would need to assert the act in question was essentially a legislative activity. Quoting from the Federal Judicial Center's extensive paper on section 1983: State and local ...


3

The biggest issue with your situation is that the police didn't get your $350. The towing company did. So even if you can get the police to admit they made a mistake, they don't have your money, and can't give it back. They will tell you to take it up with the towing company. The towing company isn't going to give you your money back, because towing ...


2

The Police will usually turn a blind eye and not report anything that will implicate themselves or one of their own. While it is assumed that they would follow the law and be morally just in their enforcement. History has shown it is not like that. Police very rarely get charged with crimes, even less often get convicted of crimes even with video evidence of ...


2

There are laws in place in some states and cities that prevent a towing company from holding your vehicle hostage if you don't pay the tow fee. I know this doesn't help you right now, but I post as an answer to bring awareness to anyone else who may find themselves in a similar situation. In your case (assuming Seattle or Washington state has a similar law) ...


2

From your link (paragraph B): This time, with only ten days before JCSO's planned press conference on the success of its April 20 raid, the previously innocuous vegetation was considered to be wet marijuana plant material. Burns asserts that he field tested the plant material found on April 10 using a Lynn Peavey KN reagent test kit, and that it was ...


1

As a practical matter, this simply doesn't happen. The employer of the police is usually bound by an employment contract or by common law duties to police employees, to pay their legal fees. Sometimes a police union will as well. Usually, their employer pays for this as part of the benefit for insurance coverage or participation of a governmental shared risk ...


1

China has sovereign immunity, Germany has sovereign immunity. Xi Jinping doesn't have sovereign immunity, nor did Adolph Hitler. Sovereign immunity is something United States law gives to other countries, not the leaders of other countries. This prevents most lawsuits against China from succeeding in the US. On official visits, leaders of other countries ...


1

For all practical purposes, in its historical context and has it has been applied since 1789 when it was adopted, the oath of office required by the United States Constitution serves the sole purpose of requiring the judge (and other public officials) to agree that the presently constituted government of the United States (rather than, for example, the ...


1

Unless the judge knew that the probable cause standard had not been met, but corruptly or maliciously issued the warrant anyway, I don't see that the judge's oath was violated. If the judge believed false testimony from the police, the judge did not violate anything, although the warrant might be overturned by an appeals court, and the police might be liable ...


1

If the prosecution believed that the act wasn't in an official capacity and the defence believed it was then that is a fact that the court would need to determine.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible