WEBVTT - How Police Are Shielded From Lawsuits

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:18.920 --> 0:00:22.880
<v Speaker 1>After the country saw Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin with

0:00:22.920 --> 0:00:27.120
<v Speaker 1>his knee on George Floyd's neck, it reinvigorated the conversation

0:00:27.160 --> 0:00:31.400
<v Speaker 1>about the defense of qualified immunity. There were congressional hearings,

0:00:31.680 --> 0:00:35.640
<v Speaker 1>but as the protests faded, proposed reforms were voted down

0:00:35.840 --> 0:00:39.800
<v Speaker 1>or abandoned, and just last month, the Supreme Court refused

0:00:39.800 --> 0:00:42.879
<v Speaker 1>to take up a challenge to qualified immunity given to

0:00:42.920 --> 0:00:46.199
<v Speaker 1>a Michigan police officer who fatally shot a man who

0:00:46.240 --> 0:00:50.000
<v Speaker 1>was investigating for traffic violations in a drive through line

0:00:50.080 --> 0:00:53.000
<v Speaker 1>at Whitecastle. My guest is u c l A law

0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:57.120
<v Speaker 1>professor Joanna Schwartz. Her new book is entitled Shielded, How

0:00:57.160 --> 0:01:01.160
<v Speaker 1>the Police Became Untouchable. Joanna, tell us what you decided

0:01:01.240 --> 0:01:05.120
<v Speaker 1>to write this book and how much research went into it. So,

0:01:05.520 --> 0:01:07.440
<v Speaker 1>I am a professor at u c l A, and

0:01:07.480 --> 0:01:13.160
<v Speaker 1>I've been studying police misconduct and civil rights litigation since

0:01:13.319 --> 0:01:15.840
<v Speaker 1>i became a law professor. It was inspired by my

0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:20.280
<v Speaker 1>own work as a civil rights attorney about twenty years ago,

0:01:20.880 --> 0:01:23.240
<v Speaker 1>and I had done a bunch of research trying to

0:01:23.319 --> 0:01:27.720
<v Speaker 1>understand what impact civil rights lawsuits actually had on police

0:01:27.720 --> 0:01:32.600
<v Speaker 1>departments and local governments, and what the legal barriers are

0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:35.880
<v Speaker 1>to release in these cases that have been created by

0:01:35.959 --> 0:01:40.640
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court and state and local government around the country,

0:01:41.040 --> 0:01:46.240
<v Speaker 1>often based on overblown arguments about the kinds of dangers

0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:49.480
<v Speaker 1>that um and harms that would come to us as

0:01:49.520 --> 0:01:51.920
<v Speaker 1>a society if it was too easy to get justice

0:01:51.920 --> 0:01:54.960
<v Speaker 1>in these cases. And I have been doing that research

0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:59.040
<v Speaker 1>and sharing it with my academic audience and peers. And

0:01:59.160 --> 0:02:05.320
<v Speaker 1>then George Floyd was murdered in May, and the kinds

0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:09.400
<v Speaker 1>of topics that I and other academics have been toiling

0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:15.080
<v Speaker 1>over in the shadows, things like qualified immunity and police

0:02:15.120 --> 0:02:19.440
<v Speaker 1>department budgets and who actually pays for settlements and judgments

0:02:19.440 --> 0:02:22.800
<v Speaker 1>in police misconduct cases, and what impacts do they really have,

0:02:22.960 --> 0:02:25.520
<v Speaker 1>and how can we get justice in these cases. These

0:02:25.560 --> 0:02:31.680
<v Speaker 1>conversations were now being had by government officials, by protesters,

0:02:31.720 --> 0:02:35.480
<v Speaker 1>by people sitting around kitchen tables, and I realized that

0:02:35.520 --> 0:02:38.760
<v Speaker 1>it was important, critically important, at this moment in time

0:02:39.720 --> 0:02:43.920
<v Speaker 1>to share some of this information and insight with a

0:02:43.960 --> 0:02:48.519
<v Speaker 1>broader audience and really reveal all of the different ways

0:02:48.600 --> 0:02:51.240
<v Speaker 1>in which it is so difficult to get justice in

0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:56.640
<v Speaker 1>these cases, and also to provide tangible evidence that the

0:02:56.880 --> 0:03:00.960
<v Speaker 1>kinds of fears that have motivated restrictions on the ability

0:03:01.040 --> 0:03:05.920
<v Speaker 1>to sue and get justice have really no basis in reality.

0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:09.679
<v Speaker 1>So my goal with Shielded is to present this information

0:03:10.200 --> 0:03:14.680
<v Speaker 1>and away from the kinds of you two eight character

0:03:15.080 --> 0:03:19.240
<v Speaker 1>sound bites that information often traveled in, and to to

0:03:19.320 --> 0:03:22.079
<v Speaker 1>really take the space and the time to to look

0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:24.360
<v Speaker 1>at all of these barriers to relief and to really

0:03:24.400 --> 0:03:28.679
<v Speaker 1>think about a meaningful path forward. Qualified immunity was created

0:03:28.720 --> 0:03:33.320
<v Speaker 1>by the Supreme Court. Explain what it is. Qualified immunity

0:03:33.639 --> 0:03:37.600
<v Speaker 1>was created by the Supreme Court in nineteen sixty seven,

0:03:37.960 --> 0:03:41.080
<v Speaker 1>and what they called at that time a good space immunity.

0:03:41.520 --> 0:03:44.840
<v Speaker 1>If an officer thought that the constitution allowed what they

0:03:44.840 --> 0:03:47.080
<v Speaker 1>were doing but they turned out to be wrong, the

0:03:47.120 --> 0:03:51.240
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court said an officer shouldn't be held responsible. But

0:03:51.640 --> 0:03:56.040
<v Speaker 1>in the Supreme Court shifted entirely what qualified immunity meant,

0:03:56.080 --> 0:03:59.520
<v Speaker 1>got rid of this idea of good faith conduct and

0:03:59.560 --> 0:04:03.040
<v Speaker 1>instead said that officers were entitled to qualified immunity so

0:04:03.080 --> 0:04:06.000
<v Speaker 1>long as the law wasn't clearly established, even if they

0:04:06.040 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 1>were acting in bad faith and then since nineteen eighty two,

0:04:10.120 --> 0:04:13.920
<v Speaker 1>over the past forty years, the definition of what clearly

0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:18.640
<v Speaker 1>established law is has gotten so narrow that officers can

0:04:18.720 --> 0:04:22.440
<v Speaker 1>be relieved from liability even if they've acted in bad space,

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:26.560
<v Speaker 1>even if they've violated the constitution, if simply they have

0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:30.200
<v Speaker 1>the good luck to have violated a person's rights in

0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:34.600
<v Speaker 1>a way that has not previously been ruled upon before

0:04:34.800 --> 0:04:38.320
<v Speaker 1>in a prior court decision. And so there can be

0:04:38.520 --> 0:04:43.320
<v Speaker 1>miniscule factoral differences in a prior case. A person could

0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:46.320
<v Speaker 1>have in a prior case been you know, assaulted by

0:04:46.400 --> 0:04:49.520
<v Speaker 1>a police dog while they were on the ground having

0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:54.000
<v Speaker 1>stopped resisting, and a court found that unconstitutional. But then

0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:57.919
<v Speaker 1>that prior decision wasn't enough to clearly establish that it

0:04:57.960 --> 0:05:00.640
<v Speaker 1>was unconstitutional to release a police saw that a person

0:05:00.680 --> 0:05:03.240
<v Speaker 1>who was sitting down with their hands in the air.

0:05:03.640 --> 0:05:06.280
<v Speaker 1>These are the kinds of factual distinctions that have been

0:05:06.400 --> 0:05:10.720
<v Speaker 1>enough for court to grant officers qualified immunity. So then,

0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:14.919
<v Speaker 1>in essence, qualified immunity limits the cases that can be

0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:17.719
<v Speaker 1>brought in the future to those that have been brought

0:05:17.800 --> 0:05:21.599
<v Speaker 1>with almost identical facts in the past. Yes, it's a

0:05:21.640 --> 0:05:25.320
<v Speaker 1>bit of a catch twenty two because the Supreme Court

0:05:25.360 --> 0:05:28.320
<v Speaker 1>has said, the law is not clearly established unless you

0:05:28.400 --> 0:05:32.200
<v Speaker 1>can find a prior court case where this conduct was

0:05:32.320 --> 0:05:36.480
<v Speaker 1>ruled unconstitutional. But it's hard to get to that first

0:05:36.760 --> 0:05:40.200
<v Speaker 1>decision if there's not a prior one. And the Supreme

0:05:40.200 --> 0:05:43.000
<v Speaker 1>Court has actually made the challenge to find clearly established

0:05:43.080 --> 0:05:46.760
<v Speaker 1>law even more difficult because it has told court that

0:05:46.839 --> 0:05:50.320
<v Speaker 1>they don't have to rule on the constitutionality of an

0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:54.280
<v Speaker 1>officer's conduct before granting them qualified immunity. So courts are

0:05:54.320 --> 0:05:57.560
<v Speaker 1>telling playtiffs in civil rights cases that they have to

0:05:57.600 --> 0:06:00.840
<v Speaker 1>find a prior court decision with nearly identify fact, and

0:06:00.880 --> 0:06:04.640
<v Speaker 1>then the same Supreme Court is telling lower courts that

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:08.560
<v Speaker 1>they don't have to issue decisions that decide whether the

0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:14.160
<v Speaker 1>constitution was violated. One of the justifications for qualified immunity

0:06:14.200 --> 0:06:18.039
<v Speaker 1>is to protect well intentioned police officers from having to

0:06:18.080 --> 0:06:23.200
<v Speaker 1>pay huge judgments and possibly being bankrupt by them. But

0:06:23.440 --> 0:06:28.000
<v Speaker 1>do officers ever pay these judgments out of their own pocket?

0:06:28.480 --> 0:06:34.080
<v Speaker 1>Officers very, very rarely pay anything for settlements and judgments

0:06:34.080 --> 0:06:38.159
<v Speaker 1>in police misconduct cases. This was one of the earlier

0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 1>studies that I did to explore qualified immunity and the

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:47.120
<v Speaker 1>justifications for the doctrine, and I looked at eighty one

0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:50.400
<v Speaker 1>jurisdictions across the country over a six year period and

0:06:50.440 --> 0:06:53.640
<v Speaker 1>found that ninety nine point nine eight percent of the

0:06:53.720 --> 0:06:56.680
<v Speaker 1>dollars in these cases were paid by local government, not

0:06:56.839 --> 0:07:00.000
<v Speaker 1>by police officers. And this was true even when officers

0:07:00.360 --> 0:07:06.600
<v Speaker 1>were disciplined, fired, criminally prosecuted. The money rarely, rarely, rarely

0:07:06.720 --> 0:07:10.760
<v Speaker 1>came from officers pockets, and when it did, I've found

0:07:10.760 --> 0:07:15.000
<v Speaker 1>two jurisdictions out of the one that had required officers

0:07:15.000 --> 0:07:18.800
<v Speaker 1>to contribute during the six year period, the average payment

0:07:18.840 --> 0:07:21.800
<v Speaker 1>was about four thousand dollars. No officer paid more than

0:07:21.840 --> 0:07:25.640
<v Speaker 1>twenty five thousand dollars. So the idea that officers are

0:07:25.640 --> 0:07:30.280
<v Speaker 1>being bankrupted or threatened to be bankrupted by civil rights

0:07:30.360 --> 0:07:34.080
<v Speaker 1>lawsuits is an argument that's been made by the Supreme Court,

0:07:34.480 --> 0:07:38.120
<v Speaker 1>that's been made by Senators and congressmen who want to

0:07:38.200 --> 0:07:42.280
<v Speaker 1>keep qualified immunity, been made by political pundit, and it

0:07:42.480 --> 0:07:47.600
<v Speaker 1>simply has no basis in reality. After George Floyd, there

0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:52.920
<v Speaker 1>were even protesters protesting against qualified immunity. So do you

0:07:52.960 --> 0:07:57.960
<v Speaker 1>think it's a concept that people are more aware of now? Absolutely?

0:07:58.120 --> 0:08:02.360
<v Speaker 1>I think that qualified in the which was really even

0:08:02.400 --> 0:08:05.760
<v Speaker 1>a fringe issue of interest for people who are legal

0:08:05.800 --> 0:08:10.240
<v Speaker 1>academics interested in issues of the federal government and federal courts,

0:08:10.240 --> 0:08:14.200
<v Speaker 1>and it moved from that very narrow area of interest

0:08:14.240 --> 0:08:18.720
<v Speaker 1>into one that yes has taken on significant, very significant

0:08:18.880 --> 0:08:23.560
<v Speaker 1>political and cultural meaning. And people in the protests following

0:08:23.600 --> 0:08:28.320
<v Speaker 1>George Blood's murder were carrying handwritten science that said end

0:08:28.480 --> 0:08:32.280
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunity. I think it's a difficult legal concept to

0:08:32.400 --> 0:08:35.960
<v Speaker 1>understand and to understand the intricacies of the doctrine as

0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:38.920
<v Speaker 1>it functions on the ground, But I think that it's

0:08:38.960 --> 0:08:43.120
<v Speaker 1>got the political failiens it has because there are these

0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:47.440
<v Speaker 1>high profile cases where officers have done truly egregious things

0:08:47.679 --> 0:08:53.679
<v Speaker 1>but have been shielded from responsibility because of qualified immunity doctrine.

0:08:54.040 --> 0:08:57.920
<v Speaker 1>I also think that the idea of qualified immunity, this

0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:05.120
<v Speaker 1>idea that officers are essentially immune or mostly immune from

0:09:05.160 --> 0:09:11.320
<v Speaker 1>responsibility for their misconduct, is a concept that has taken hold,

0:09:11.520 --> 0:09:14.319
<v Speaker 1>and whether or not people understand the intricacies of the

0:09:14.440 --> 0:09:18.400
<v Speaker 1>legal doctrine, the underlying notion that police officers can be

0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:21.679
<v Speaker 1>above the law is something that people have really come

0:09:21.800 --> 0:09:27.320
<v Speaker 1>to focus on and reject as a concept. In your book,

0:09:27.320 --> 0:09:32.920
<v Speaker 1>you give many, many examples of cases where there's police misconduct.

0:09:33.400 --> 0:09:37.360
<v Speaker 1>Give us one example, the one that strikes you most.

0:09:37.880 --> 0:09:42.560
<v Speaker 1>That's a hard question, because in my book I aimed

0:09:42.600 --> 0:09:45.440
<v Speaker 1>to tell the story of people whose rights have been

0:09:45.520 --> 0:09:49.680
<v Speaker 1>violated and looked for cases that I just couldn't stop

0:09:49.760 --> 0:09:51.720
<v Speaker 1>thinking about. If there was a case I couldn't stop

0:09:51.760 --> 0:09:54.560
<v Speaker 1>thinking about, that was the one that I had to

0:09:54.600 --> 0:09:58.760
<v Speaker 1>put in the book. But I think that, Um, there's

0:09:58.800 --> 0:10:03.320
<v Speaker 1>a case about a man named Rob Lee's who was

0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:08.600
<v Speaker 1>panhandling in Orlando and ended up having a good Samaritan

0:10:08.720 --> 0:10:11.240
<v Speaker 1>offer to buy him a sandwich and something to drink

0:10:11.600 --> 0:10:14.480
<v Speaker 1>and then basically left him to pay the bill. He

0:10:14.520 --> 0:10:18.280
<v Speaker 1>didn't have the money, so he told the restaurant, you know,

0:10:18.280 --> 0:10:20.760
<v Speaker 1>I'll wash dishes for you. They said they're not interested.

0:10:20.800 --> 0:10:22.400
<v Speaker 1>Then he said, well, you better call the police because

0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:25.440
<v Speaker 1>I don't have the money. And the police came and

0:10:25.480 --> 0:10:28.520
<v Speaker 1>an officer ended up sort of pushing him into his

0:10:28.559 --> 0:10:31.920
<v Speaker 1>police car. Um and then Rob was put in a

0:10:31.920 --> 0:10:35.640
<v Speaker 1>holding pen in handcuffs, and after he had been sort

0:10:35.640 --> 0:10:38.280
<v Speaker 1>of knocking on the door to to get some attention,

0:10:38.600 --> 0:10:42.120
<v Speaker 1>that officer came in and need him in the gut

0:10:42.400 --> 0:10:46.600
<v Speaker 1>so hard that he ended up needing emergency surgery to

0:10:46.880 --> 0:10:51.680
<v Speaker 1>remove his spleen. This officer was actually charged with a

0:10:51.760 --> 0:10:56.280
<v Speaker 1>crime and sent to jail, and the case went to

0:10:57.080 --> 0:10:59.800
<v Speaker 1>a jury, and the jury ended up finding that this

0:11:00.040 --> 0:11:04.080
<v Speaker 1>officer had violated his constitutional rights but awarded him zero

0:11:04.480 --> 0:11:07.640
<v Speaker 1>nothing in damages for a kick so hard that he

0:11:07.720 --> 0:11:10.679
<v Speaker 1>lost his spleen and he's had to carry the burden

0:11:11.000 --> 0:11:15.120
<v Speaker 1>of the resulting medical harms on his own. It has

0:11:15.160 --> 0:11:19.240
<v Speaker 1>absolutely dramatically impacted his life. When I've talked to him recently,

0:11:19.559 --> 0:11:23.160
<v Speaker 1>he's unable to hold down a job, he has massive

0:11:23.160 --> 0:11:26.680
<v Speaker 1>medical bills, his other organs are breaking down because of

0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:31.920
<v Speaker 1>this injury that he suffered. And a jury, which you know,

0:11:32.000 --> 0:11:37.000
<v Speaker 1>often we think about runaway juries, you know, awarding huge damages. Um,

0:11:37.200 --> 0:11:39.559
<v Speaker 1>we hear lots of stories, you know that sort of

0:11:39.720 --> 0:11:43.040
<v Speaker 1>suggests that juries are are all too eager to award

0:11:43.120 --> 0:11:47.000
<v Speaker 1>money to plaintiffs. In this case, the jury wasn't unsympathetic

0:11:47.120 --> 0:11:50.840
<v Speaker 1>to Rob Lee's even though they believed they ruled that

0:11:50.920 --> 0:11:53.600
<v Speaker 1>his rights had been violated. And the best information we

0:11:53.679 --> 0:11:56.160
<v Speaker 1>have is that they knew that he was an alcoholic.

0:11:56.240 --> 0:11:58.559
<v Speaker 1>They knew that he drank too much, and the jury

0:11:58.559 --> 0:12:02.600
<v Speaker 1>didn't want to give more money to support his habits.

0:12:02.640 --> 0:12:05.760
<v Speaker 1>Bringing a lawsuit is not as easy as it may

0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:08.680
<v Speaker 1>seem to people, and you found that less than one

0:12:08.720 --> 0:12:11.840
<v Speaker 1>percent of people who believe their rights have been violated

0:12:11.840 --> 0:12:16.280
<v Speaker 1>by police ever file a lawsuit, and the most challenging

0:12:16.400 --> 0:12:20.520
<v Speaker 1>step turns out to be finding a lawyer. So I

0:12:20.559 --> 0:12:23.720
<v Speaker 1>think that many people will be surprised by this idea

0:12:23.760 --> 0:12:25.920
<v Speaker 1>that it's hard to find a lawyer, because there's all

0:12:25.960 --> 0:12:29.520
<v Speaker 1>sorts of coverage or suggestion that lawyers are a dime

0:12:29.520 --> 0:12:31.520
<v Speaker 1>a dozen and they're all too eager to bring these

0:12:31.640 --> 0:12:35.200
<v Speaker 1>kinds of cases. But in many parts of the country,

0:12:35.320 --> 0:12:38.080
<v Speaker 1>it is very difficult to find a lawyer, particularly a

0:12:38.080 --> 0:12:41.280
<v Speaker 1>skilled lawyer, in civil rights litigation, and part of it

0:12:41.320 --> 0:12:44.400
<v Speaker 1>has to do with the challenges of bringing these cases.

0:12:44.600 --> 0:12:48.120
<v Speaker 1>It is hard to prove a constitutional violation, hard to

0:12:48.120 --> 0:12:51.760
<v Speaker 1>get over qualified immunity, hard to prove a local government

0:12:51.840 --> 0:12:56.199
<v Speaker 1>is responsible, hard to convince a jury that their clients

0:12:56.240 --> 0:12:59.600
<v Speaker 1>who may have had you know, prior arrests or other

0:12:59.640 --> 0:13:03.280
<v Speaker 1>involved men with the criminal justice system, are worthy of

0:13:03.360 --> 0:13:07.720
<v Speaker 1>a substantial settlement or judgment in these cases. And lawyers

0:13:07.840 --> 0:13:12.559
<v Speaker 1>are in these cases generally paid on contingency, meaning they

0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:15.480
<v Speaker 1>get a portion of a settlement if the plaintiff wins,

0:13:15.480 --> 0:13:18.560
<v Speaker 1>then they get nothing if they lose. And lawyers deciding

0:13:18.559 --> 0:13:21.120
<v Speaker 1>whether to take these cases are often considering whether they

0:13:21.120 --> 0:13:24.080
<v Speaker 1>should take a police misconduct case or let's say, a

0:13:24.120 --> 0:13:27.000
<v Speaker 1>medical malpractice case or a personal injury case. So I've

0:13:27.000 --> 0:13:30.720
<v Speaker 1>spoken to dozens of lawyers about their case selection decisions

0:13:30.800 --> 0:13:34.120
<v Speaker 1>in civil rights cases, and many have said that bringing

0:13:34.120 --> 0:13:37.680
<v Speaker 1>these other kinds of civil cases are far less risky,

0:13:37.840 --> 0:13:40.480
<v Speaker 1>far easier to make a living with. And so the

0:13:40.520 --> 0:13:43.640
<v Speaker 1>people who bring civil rights cases are people who are

0:13:44.000 --> 0:13:48.120
<v Speaker 1>truly dedicated to the cause, or are people who are

0:13:48.440 --> 0:13:51.520
<v Speaker 1>trying out bringing civil rights cases, you know, for the

0:13:51.559 --> 0:13:54.920
<v Speaker 1>first time or newly. And what lawyers will tell you

0:13:55.000 --> 0:13:57.160
<v Speaker 1>is it's very difficult to make a living. So people

0:13:57.200 --> 0:13:59.959
<v Speaker 1>either dig in and decide to commit themselves to civil

0:14:00.000 --> 0:14:02.720
<v Speaker 1>ice litigation, or they decided to move on to other

0:14:03.200 --> 0:14:06.240
<v Speaker 1>easier areas of work. And what that means is that

0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:08.720
<v Speaker 1>in many parts of the country it is difficult to

0:14:08.720 --> 0:14:11.360
<v Speaker 1>find a lawyer. I tell the story of a person

0:14:11.400 --> 0:14:15.719
<v Speaker 1>who's who was really brutally harmed in up state New

0:14:15.800 --> 0:14:19.960
<v Speaker 1>York and there were no lawyers. Lawyers in New York

0:14:20.000 --> 0:14:23.400
<v Speaker 1>City were busy enough with their own cases, and they're

0:14:23.400 --> 0:14:27.560
<v Speaker 1>really work lawyers in the community who were skilled to

0:14:27.560 --> 0:14:29.960
<v Speaker 1>to bring these cases. That ended up being a lawyer

0:14:30.040 --> 0:14:34.360
<v Speaker 1>from San Francisco who blue to New York and ended

0:14:34.440 --> 0:14:38.840
<v Speaker 1>up taking this case for years um to ultimately get

0:14:38.880 --> 0:14:42.600
<v Speaker 1>justice in the case. One lawyer told you, it sounds crass,

0:14:42.680 --> 0:14:45.600
<v Speaker 1>but we say, well, is there blood on the street,

0:14:45.760 --> 0:14:49.080
<v Speaker 1>because if there isn't, why are we doing it? Yes,

0:14:49.160 --> 0:14:52.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean that it does sound crass, but there's also

0:14:52.760 --> 0:14:57.520
<v Speaker 1>a lot of sense in that crassness, because lawyers aren't

0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:00.440
<v Speaker 1>paid unless they win, and then are they paid a

0:15:00.520 --> 0:15:03.920
<v Speaker 1>portion of any settlement that they get. And this is

0:15:03.960 --> 0:15:08.200
<v Speaker 1>a place where the Supreme Court is really responsible for

0:15:08.360 --> 0:15:12.160
<v Speaker 1>this kind of crass judgments that lawyers need to make,

0:15:12.600 --> 0:15:16.360
<v Speaker 1>because Congress in a second seventy six created the rights

0:15:16.480 --> 0:15:19.800
<v Speaker 1>for plainett lawyers and civil rights cases to get their

0:15:19.800 --> 0:15:23.800
<v Speaker 1>reasonable fees when they bring a successful case. And they

0:15:23.880 --> 0:15:27.360
<v Speaker 1>did that precisely so that lawyers did not have to

0:15:27.400 --> 0:15:29.960
<v Speaker 1>make that kind of craft decisions, so they weren't limited

0:15:30.000 --> 0:15:33.720
<v Speaker 1>to a contingency the arrangement. But in a series of decisions,

0:15:33.760 --> 0:15:38.280
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court has interpreted that right to reasonable attorney

0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:41.640
<v Speaker 1>spees in such a way that it's essentially returned us

0:15:41.760 --> 0:15:45.320
<v Speaker 1>to a contingency these system for civil rights cases, which

0:15:45.360 --> 0:15:48.320
<v Speaker 1>ends up meaning that civil rights cases involving protection of

0:15:48.400 --> 0:15:52.400
<v Speaker 1>constitutional rights and have really been reduced to the same

0:15:52.520 --> 0:15:56.320
<v Speaker 1>kind of financial calculations as a lawyer deciding whether to

0:15:56.440 --> 0:16:00.000
<v Speaker 1>take an auto accident case or a medical malpractice case.

0:16:01.360 --> 0:16:04.520
<v Speaker 1>After you know, the George Floyd case and a lot

0:16:04.560 --> 0:16:07.920
<v Speaker 1>of the other cases that we've heard about are in

0:16:08.040 --> 0:16:14.240
<v Speaker 1>people seeing police differently. But yet you write that plaintiffs

0:16:14.280 --> 0:16:18.360
<v Speaker 1>sometimes win big in police misconduct trials, but they lose

0:16:18.400 --> 0:16:21.800
<v Speaker 1>it trial more often than they win. Is that because

0:16:21.840 --> 0:16:28.120
<v Speaker 1>there's still this idea of police being beyond reproach. Yeah,

0:16:28.720 --> 0:16:35.080
<v Speaker 1>there certainly is more skepticism about police and policing since

0:16:35.320 --> 0:16:39.520
<v Speaker 1>George Floyd murder. And you know, that shift I think

0:16:39.560 --> 0:16:43.200
<v Speaker 1>has has been happening over a longer stretch of time. Um.

0:16:44.120 --> 0:16:48.400
<v Speaker 1>You know, as you know, as the killings, particularly as

0:16:48.440 --> 0:16:52.320
<v Speaker 1>black men over the past decade decade and a half,

0:16:52.360 --> 0:16:55.080
<v Speaker 1>has been more often captured on video and have has

0:16:55.120 --> 0:17:00.320
<v Speaker 1>gone viral and have really attracted public attention. But even

0:17:00.360 --> 0:17:05.199
<v Speaker 1>with all of that focus, Um, for many Americans, Uh,

0:17:05.600 --> 0:17:15.880
<v Speaker 1>police are among the most respected UM and trusted professions. Uh,

0:17:15.920 --> 0:17:20.879
<v Speaker 1>but there is also diversity of opinion on that point. Um,

0:17:21.240 --> 0:17:24.880
<v Speaker 1>Black Americans have a much more skeptical view of police

0:17:24.920 --> 0:17:27.480
<v Speaker 1>than white Americans and it and it breaks down on

0:17:27.560 --> 0:17:32.040
<v Speaker 1>other lines as well. But juries, as I argue in

0:17:32.119 --> 0:17:37.359
<v Speaker 1>the book, are selected in ways that systematically, at many

0:17:37.359 --> 0:17:42.280
<v Speaker 1>points in the process remove people who are more skeptical

0:17:42.760 --> 0:17:46.639
<v Speaker 1>of the police and are more likely to believe a

0:17:46.920 --> 0:17:52.240
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs perspective up from the jury pool and from the

0:17:52.320 --> 0:17:57.119
<v Speaker 1>jury itself. Um. You know, people who have felony convictions

0:17:57.119 --> 0:18:00.919
<v Speaker 1>are cannot serve in federal juries. Uh. So that in

0:18:00.960 --> 0:18:05.960
<v Speaker 1>it of itself has a significant racial disparity. And then

0:18:06.720 --> 0:18:09.800
<v Speaker 1>you have to think about the jury selection process. Jury

0:18:09.880 --> 0:18:15.280
<v Speaker 1>questionnaires in in a significant part of the federal districts

0:18:15.560 --> 0:18:20.919
<v Speaker 1>are only sent to registered voters UM states. Various states

0:18:20.960 --> 0:18:26.879
<v Speaker 1>have have sent them also to everyone with a identification card,

0:18:26.960 --> 0:18:32.400
<v Speaker 1>people who are getting unemployment benefits. But the federal system,

0:18:32.600 --> 0:18:37.640
<v Speaker 1>all that need be done is to submit those jury

0:18:37.680 --> 0:18:41.959
<v Speaker 1>forms to UM registered voters, which again has a racially

0:18:42.000 --> 0:18:44.880
<v Speaker 1>disparate impact. And then you know, people need to return

0:18:44.960 --> 0:18:50.119
<v Speaker 1>them and show up to the UM to the appointment

0:18:50.240 --> 0:18:53.960
<v Speaker 1>to to sit on a jury. Again, there's been studies

0:18:54.000 --> 0:18:56.440
<v Speaker 1>that show that the way in which these juries are

0:18:56.440 --> 0:19:02.120
<v Speaker 1>configured UM have racially disparate impact UM. And then once

0:19:02.160 --> 0:19:06.560
<v Speaker 1>they're actually sitting, jurors can be excused if they've ever

0:19:06.640 --> 0:19:10.560
<v Speaker 1>had a negative interaction with law enforcement UM, so that

0:19:10.720 --> 0:19:14.560
<v Speaker 1>you end up rob leases jury who awarded him nothing

0:19:14.640 --> 0:19:16.879
<v Speaker 1>after he'd been kicked so hard in the stomach that

0:19:16.920 --> 0:19:21.440
<v Speaker 1>he lost his pleen was all white and uh, all

0:19:21.840 --> 0:19:24.640
<v Speaker 1>people who had had who had never had a negative

0:19:24.640 --> 0:19:27.119
<v Speaker 1>interaction with the police. We hear a lot about the

0:19:27.160 --> 0:19:32.000
<v Speaker 1>settlements in high profile cases million to settle the George

0:19:32.000 --> 0:19:34.439
<v Speaker 1>Floyd case. I'm just gonna go through a few twelve

0:19:34.440 --> 0:19:37.880
<v Speaker 1>million dollars settlement in the Brianna Taylor case, six point

0:19:37.920 --> 0:19:40.520
<v Speaker 1>four million in the Freddie Gray case, six million in

0:19:40.560 --> 0:19:45.600
<v Speaker 1>the Eric Garner case. Are those then exceptions, The cases

0:19:45.640 --> 0:19:48.720
<v Speaker 1>that we know about and that we have heard about

0:19:48.800 --> 0:19:53.400
<v Speaker 1>do settle for astronomical sums. And I do think that

0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:56.760
<v Speaker 1>the threat of those kinds of cases going to trial,

0:19:57.080 --> 0:20:01.720
<v Speaker 1>particularly with the public attention to the leads local governments

0:20:01.760 --> 0:20:05.800
<v Speaker 1>to make settlement offers that really are significant. But there

0:20:05.800 --> 0:20:07.919
<v Speaker 1>are more than a thousand people who are killed by

0:20:07.960 --> 0:20:10.600
<v Speaker 1>police every year, and there are hundreds of thousands of

0:20:10.640 --> 0:20:15.879
<v Speaker 1>people who have been assaulted or searched or surveilled in

0:20:16.400 --> 0:20:20.240
<v Speaker 1>ways that may violate their constitutional rights. And when you

0:20:20.320 --> 0:20:24.760
<v Speaker 1>look at the settlement values in these cases, they often

0:20:25.000 --> 0:20:29.960
<v Speaker 1>are much lower or their cases in which the plaintiff

0:20:30.040 --> 0:20:33.199
<v Speaker 1>loses all together. Um. There's a case that that I

0:20:33.240 --> 0:20:35.880
<v Speaker 1>talked about in the book, brought by a man named

0:20:35.920 --> 0:20:41.960
<v Speaker 1>Robbie Tolan, who was a minor league baseball player who

0:20:42.119 --> 0:20:45.040
<v Speaker 1>was shot in front of his home by a white

0:20:45.040 --> 0:20:49.120
<v Speaker 1>police officer, an African American man, and he had been

0:20:49.200 --> 0:20:53.399
<v Speaker 1>on the ground and uh when he was shot. And

0:20:53.520 --> 0:20:57.720
<v Speaker 1>the case after years of back and forth, with the

0:20:57.880 --> 0:21:00.920
<v Speaker 1>family needing to sell their home in order to pay

0:21:00.920 --> 0:21:03.760
<v Speaker 1>a lawyer to continue fighting their case. On the eve

0:21:03.760 --> 0:21:06.399
<v Speaker 1>of trial, that's a case that settled for a hundred

0:21:06.400 --> 0:21:11.520
<v Speaker 1>thousand dollars and Robbie Tolin's baseball career is over. Um,

0:21:11.600 --> 0:21:14.280
<v Speaker 1>he is lucky to have survived. He still has the

0:21:14.320 --> 0:21:17.800
<v Speaker 1>bullet lodged in his body. But that is a case

0:21:17.880 --> 0:21:20.080
<v Speaker 1>that has not gotten the attention. I don't think that

0:21:20.200 --> 0:21:24.399
<v Speaker 1>it should have. And the settlement amount in that case

0:21:24.760 --> 0:21:29.840
<v Speaker 1>really barely reflects the degree of harm. That he and

0:21:29.920 --> 0:21:32.760
<v Speaker 1>his family suffered. In my view, do you see any

0:21:32.920 --> 0:21:36.639
<v Speaker 1>changes ahead in the qualified immunity doctrine. Congress could do

0:21:36.720 --> 0:21:39.760
<v Speaker 1>something to qualified immunity if it wanted to, and it

0:21:39.920 --> 0:21:43.560
<v Speaker 1>sort of flirted with the possibility of doing so in

0:21:43.600 --> 0:21:47.359
<v Speaker 1>the aftermath of George Floyd's murder but ended up doing nothing.

0:21:47.800 --> 0:21:51.240
<v Speaker 1>And some states have passed statutes. Colorado has created a

0:21:51.359 --> 0:21:54.320
<v Speaker 1>right to do under state law without the protections of

0:21:54.400 --> 0:21:58.040
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunity, and there's other states that have passed similar

0:21:58.240 --> 0:22:02.280
<v Speaker 1>laws or are looking at them. But the same kinds

0:22:02.320 --> 0:22:07.560
<v Speaker 1>of arguments about officers being bankrupted for reasonable mistakes is

0:22:07.920 --> 0:22:11.439
<v Speaker 1>rhetoric that has made these kinds of laws difficult to

0:22:11.440 --> 0:22:16.320
<v Speaker 1>pass and has led to their failure in some state legislatures.

0:22:16.480 --> 0:22:19.760
<v Speaker 1>I do think that states are probably a more viable

0:22:20.000 --> 0:22:24.000
<v Speaker 1>alternative to Congress at this point. The other part of

0:22:24.040 --> 0:22:27.320
<v Speaker 1>what I tried to get across in Shielded is that

0:22:27.440 --> 0:22:31.240
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunity is not the only barrier to release, although

0:22:31.240 --> 0:22:34.640
<v Speaker 1>it has gotten the most attention in recent years. Other

0:22:34.760 --> 0:22:38.919
<v Speaker 1>challenges like finding a lawyer, drafting a complaint, proving a

0:22:38.960 --> 0:22:44.240
<v Speaker 1>constitutional violation, proving the city's responsibility are other barriers that

0:22:44.320 --> 0:22:48.880
<v Speaker 1>are equally challenging to overcome, and part of my goal

0:22:48.960 --> 0:22:53.240
<v Speaker 1>with the book is to reveal all of these various shields,

0:22:53.280 --> 0:22:56.199
<v Speaker 1>not just qualified immunity, that make it so difficult to

0:22:56.240 --> 0:22:59.439
<v Speaker 1>get justice in these cases. Uh. And in the end

0:22:59.480 --> 0:23:04.200
<v Speaker 1>of the book, I offer some suggestions for ways that

0:23:04.760 --> 0:23:08.680
<v Speaker 1>local government and even people sitting on juries and voting

0:23:08.840 --> 0:23:14.600
<v Speaker 1>for their local representatives and try to shift some of

0:23:14.720 --> 0:23:17.680
<v Speaker 1>these systems to remove some of these shields that are

0:23:17.680 --> 0:23:20.960
<v Speaker 1>currently in place. Thanks so much for being on the show, Joanna.

0:23:21.320 --> 0:23:24.400
<v Speaker 1>That's u c l A Law professor Joanna Schwartz. Her

0:23:24.440 --> 0:23:28.920
<v Speaker 1>new book is Shielded, How the Police Became Untouchable. And

0:23:28.960 --> 0:23:31.120
<v Speaker 1>that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:23:31.400 --> 0:23:33.720
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

0:23:33.800 --> 0:23:36.800
<v Speaker 1>listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast wherever you get your

0:23:36.800 --> 0:23:40.440
<v Speaker 1>favorite podcasts. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg