Home Forums Classifieds GT Store Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups


Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-10-2012, 16:12   #1
you savvy?
cowboywannabe's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: on a planet near you
Posts: 23,249
protection from a citizen review board?

if a city has a citizen's review board which disagrees with an internal investigation, and the city has been cleared of criminal wrong doing as was their employee, can they still be sued civilly?

i ask because of the caslte doctrine in many states which make a person immune from civil suit if their shooting was cleared criminally.

if there is such a statue or case law please advise what states it covers.

ive found nothing.

thank you.
with Sarah Jane, Leela, Romana, Nyssa, and Tegan.

Facts are no match against enthusiasm and ignorance...
cowboywannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 16:23   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13,602
The Castle doctrine does not apply to on duty police. Can the officer/deputy/trooper, along with their employer, be sued if no criminal charges are brought? Absolutely.

See the Rodney King incident and the subsequent Federal civil rights suit as an example.
blueiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 16:48   #3
Senior Member
L-1's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 107
When your employing department or outside agency clears you of any wrongdoing, that means an investigation by competent trained professionals determined that your actions did not violate the law, or department police, rules, regulations, etc.

When in spite of that finding, a citizens' review board still finds fault with your actions, it usually signified that an inquiry by untrained non-professionals resulted in a philosophical difference over how you handled the matter, (i.e., while we don't have a working knowledge of your profession, nonetheless we think you should have handled things a different way.) Often the expectations conveyed by such review boards are contrary to the law, common sense and the very training you were given as an officer. You can only take comfort in the fact that these findings were made by people who have no knowledge of police procedures, who were not there to see, hear and feel what really happened, and unlike you, had days to casually reflect upon what might have been an appropriate course of action when you only had a few seconds to decide matters. Most laughably, they will never be held accountable for their decisions or threatened with jail or law suits if they turn out to be wrong. In short, their findings make for good headlines but usually carry little legal weight.

Here are some things to consider.

You can always be sued, no matter what the finding. Whether the party suing you will win is another story.

In most states the law usually requires a government employer to provide an employee with free legal defense if they are sued for an act committed within the course and scope of their duties.

If a government employee is sued for an act committed within the course and scope of their duties and loses, the law in most states requires the employing agency to pay actual damages on behalf of the employee.

If a government employee is sued for an act committed within the course and scope of their duties and loses, the law in many states allows the employing agency to pay punitive damages on behalf of the employee.

L-1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 16:59   #4
Gold Membership
Crazy CO
Hack's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kansas, near the bison.
Posts: 23,000
Send a message via AIM to Hack Send a message via Yahoo to Hack
Let me put it this way, you can be sued for anything to include frivolous suits, until the judges get tired of it.

It's the biggest reason I can think of for liability insurance.
Arming with truth defeats ignorance. Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6
"Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author
and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons or the Department of Justice."
In God we trust, all others we monitor.

Last edited by Hack; 08-10-2012 at 16:59..
Hack is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:51.

GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
GT Store

Users Currently Online: 699
176 Members
523 Guests

Most users ever online: 4,867
May 19, 2015 at 1:03