If you appreciate detailed content of the type below and if you haven't already done so, please consider supporting LBREPORT.com's independent coverage. (If you have, please know we're personally grateful even if we haven't personally emailed, swamped and we hate mechanical responses.)

Regardless of financial support, please do share our coverage on your favored social networks...and thank you for your readership.

That protection could disappear under H.R. 7085 introduced June 3 by Congressman Justin Amash -- elected in 2011 as a Republican, now officially a Libertarian - joined by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D, MA) and joined (thus far) by 63 mainly Dem cosponsors (at this link) The bill's co-sponsors range from Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib to outspoken long-time conservative CA Republican Tom McClintock (R, Roseville). .

H.R. 7085 invites a high visibility political collision that may not follow traditional political lines. It pits police reform advocates against unions representing rank and file police officers and, by implication, multiple incumbents and candidates supported by those unions (local details below;)

Apart from politics, H.R. 7085 raises major policy issues pro/con and could affect policing as practiced in the real world (not merely "defunded" or "reimagined" for budget purposes.)

[Scroll down for further.]

H.R. 7085 as introduced can be viewed here.

The preamble to the HR. 7085 recites that qualified immunity "has severely limited the ability of many plaintiffs to recover damages under section 1983 when their rights have been violated by State and local officials. As a result, the intent of Congress in passing the law has been frustrated, and Americans’ rights secured by the Constitution have not been appropriately protected."

H.R. 7085 proposes to add text to Section 1979 of 42 U.S.C. 5 1983) [federal law commonly cited in lawsuits alleging violation of civil rights] to specify: "It shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought under this section that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when it was committed. Nor shall it be a defense or immunity that the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws were not clearly established at the time of their deprivation by the defendant, or that the state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know whether his or her conduct was lawful."

H.R. 7085 was sent to the House Judiciary Committee on June 4 which hasn't taken it up. If the Judiciary Committee does so and if the bill reaches the Dem majority House floor and if it passes, it would go to the Senate, currently with a Republican majority. If not approved, H.R. 7085 would die with the current Congress but could be reintroduced in a new Congress (starting in January 2021), House members could introduce a new version (possibly under a Dwmocrat President and some speculate perhaps a Democrat Senate majority depending on Nov. 2020 elections.)

Sponsor

Sponsor

Exactly where LB electeds -- incumbents and candidates seeking to succeed them -- stand on H.R. 7085 isn't yet clear. Cong. Alan Lowenthal (D, LB-west OC) isn't among H.R. 7085's early co-sponsors. Nor are other L.A.-OC area Dem House members (the nearest is co-sponsor Mark Takano, D, representing part of Riverside County.)

Three November 2020 candidates in City Council runoffs -- Cindy Allen (CD 2) and incumbents Dee Andrews (CD 6) and Al Austin (CD 8) -- are backed by LBPOA's PAC and haven't yet weighed in on HR. 7085. Nor have their runoff opponents: Robert Fox (CD2), Suely Saro (CD 6) and Tunua Thrash-Ntuk(CD 8).).

Will the City of LB take a policy position on H.R. 7085 for inclusion in City's federal advocacy? That would be decided by a City Council majority subject to a potential veto by Mayor Garcia that 2/3 of the Council can override.

The Council's Federal Legislation Committee (which can make recommendations to the Council), now chaired by Councilman Austin (joined by Councilmembers Mungo and Richardson) didn't discuss then-newly introduced HR 7085 when the Committee last met on June 9.

A "Framework for Reconciliation" advanced by Councilman Rex Richardson with co-agendizers Andrews, Austin and Pearce) and approved by the Council 9-0 didn't mention removing "qualified immunity" and the issue didn't come during a June 22 webcast "Reconciliation process" town hall on the public safety

The Council's Public Safety Committee (Price, Supernaw, Austin) -- which didn't allow public participation by teleconference at its June 23 meeting -- didn't bring up the issue.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Apart from the local politics, would H.R. 7085 help or hurt public safety locally and nationally? Would it be wise to expose police to ruinous lawsuits if others challenge actions they took in good faith? Who would go into policing knowing that could happen?

In a release accompanying introduction of the H.R. 7085, Cong. Amash stated: "Qualified immunity protects police and other officials from consequences even for horrific rights abuses...It prevents accountability for the ‘bad apples’ and undermines the public’s faith in law enforcement. It’s at odds with the text of the law and the intent of Congress, and it ultimately leaves Americans’ rights without appropriate protection. Members of Congress have a duty to ensure government officials can be held accountable for violating Americans’ rights, and ending qualified immunity is a crucial part of that."

The release indicates H.R. 7085's early endorsers include the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Arab American Institute, Constitutional Accountability Center, Due Process Institute, Lawyers for Civil Rights, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Urban League, Republican Liberty Caucus, The Justice Collaborative, and Young Americans for Liberty.

Cong McClintock, a long-time conservative Republican, delivered these comments on June 10 to the House Judiciary Committee:

We have recently suffered multiple failures of law enforcement, beginning with the killing of George Floyd. He died because a rogue cop who, despite multiple misconduct complaints, remained on a police force, as did one of his accomplices. This has become an intolerable pattern in big city police forces, and we need to ask how politically powerful police unions and the politicians they maintain in office protect the bullies in the system, that inevitably lead to atrocities like this.

The other failure was the decision to withhold police protection from their citizens by mayors and their appointed police chiefs. That failure killed Pat Underwood, David Dorn, and so many other innocent victims in the ensuing riots. Withdrawing police protection from our streets, abandoning police stations to rioters, turning a blind eye to looting, arson and mayhem, all have an incendiary effect on insurrections. Without law enforcement there is no law, and without law there is no civilization. An accounting of the deaths and destruction caused by these acts of dereliction of duty is yet to be tallied -- but it will be staggering.

...There are many reforms proposed in the House that merit support.

• First, the doctrine of qualified immunity as currently applied has no place in a nation ruled by law. For every right there must be a remedy, and qualified immunity prevents a remedy for those whose rights have been violated by officials holding a public trust. This reform should apply as much to the rogue cop who targets people because of their race as it does to IRS or Justice Department officials who target people because of their politics. Reforming qualified immunity simply holds public officials to the same standards as any other citizen exercising the same powers.

• Second, police records must be open to the public. It is a well-established principle that public servants work for the public and the public has a right to know what they're doing with the authority the public has loaned them. And police departments should be able to dismiss bad officers without interference from their unions. By preventing the public from access to these records -- and by preventing departments from acting on them -- we destroy the very foundations of successful policing in a free society public trust and accountability...

Finally, lest we forget, when faithful, dedicated and honest police officers – the overwhelming majority of those who serve -- are attacked, degraded, disrespected, demoralized, hamstrung and withdrawn, those most at risk are the poor and defenseless who live and work in our inner cities."

Developing locally. Further to follow on LBREPORT.com..

Sponsor