Landmark Supreme Court civil liberty ruling - Police can be held personally liable for issuing unlawful orders, even in good faith. Citizens do not need to follow unlawful orders.

[CitizenVectron]

In Canada  : https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-supreme-court-sides-with-woman-unlawfully-handcuffed-by-montreal/

 

Unanimous ruling, 9-0:

 

Quote

The ruling has implications for the daily interactions between police and other Canadians. Police can be sued, the court said, even if they act in good faith and in accordance with their training, as Constable Camacho did. They need to ensure they act reasonably, while keeping the liberty rights of Canadians in mind. (The ruling does not, however, mean they can be sued if a constitutional ruling changes how a law is interpreted, the court said.)

 

Quote

“In a free and democratic society, police officers may interfere with the exercise of individual freedoms only to the extent provided for by law,” Justice Suzanne Côté, one of three Quebec judges on the court, wrote in the 9-0 ruling.

 

Quote

Average citizens may wish to be cautious and comply with police, it said; if they don’t, they run a risk that they could be charged with willfully obstructing an officer. But “a well-informed person does not commit a civil fault merely by refusing to comply with an order that proves to be unlawful,” Justice Côté wrote. “A person whose rights are infringed must be able to respond — within reason, of course — without being held civilly liable.”

 

tl;dr: A women was arrested and charged by a police officer in Montreal for refusing to hold the escalator railing at a subway terminal, and for subsequently refusing to provide her name or ID. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, which ruled 9-0 that she was in the right (no legal obligation to follow the posted signage, as it was only a safety recommendation), and that she could refuse an unlawful order (and subsequent follow-up demand for ID). It awarded her $20,000, half of which must come from the officer himself (the other half from the municipality).

 

HUGE ruling for civil liberties in Canada. Even if a police officer gives an order in good faith, if they are wrong they can be held personal responsible. This is as it should be. Police need to be held to the highest standard in terms of knowing the law. How can someone be responsible for administering the law if they don't understand it?

 

 

[Jason]

[CitizenVectron]

This is one step closer to a Police Insurance system (that many here have dreamed of). The logical next step is that police unions will say "this will make police afraid to do their jobs and arrest anyone for fear of going bankrupt." The step after that should be "Provide insurance to officers so that they are covered if they make a mistake, but the worse it is (or the more they make) the more expensive it is to insure them (insurance premium paid by city/officer). This will make bad officers uninsurable, and thus they will no longer be police officers.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Handcuffing someone because they are not holding the handrail on an escalator is unreasonable.  Glad the Supreme Court recognized this.

[CitizenVectron]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

Handcuffing someone because they are not holding the handrail on an escalator is unreasonable.  Glad the Supreme Court recognized this.

 

Absolutely. Many people online are focusing on the original offense (which as you stated, is ridiculous), but many are also saying she was silly for escalating this through the courts for 10 years. But while the original event that caused the arrest may have been silly and fairly non-consequential, the precedent set by this is huge, and should be the focus of discussion.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

 

Absolutely. Many people online are focusing on the original offense (which as you stated, is ridiculous), but many are also saying she was silly for escalating this through the courts for 10 years. But while the original event that caused the arrest may have been silly and fairly non-consequential, the precedent set by this is huge, and should be the focus of discussion.

She was going to law school (so I assume she is a lawyer now?), and was a PPC candidate in London during the last election.  So, I think this is more than a private citizen taking something like this forward.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Where can I sign up for this here

[TwinIon]

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

This is one step closer to a Police Insurance system (that many here have dreamed of). The logical next step is that police unions will say "this will make police afraid to do their jobs and arrest anyone for fear of going bankrupt." The step after that should be "Provide insurance to officers so that they are covered if they make a mistake, but the worse it is (or the more they make) the more expensive it is to insure them (insurance premium paid by city/officer). This will make bad officers uninsurable, and thus they will no longer be police officers.

I hadn’t heard of that before, but that makes sense to me. Doctors get malpractice insurance and it hasn’t destroyed the profession. Of course, when you’re dealing with a union, I’m not sure how that would work exactly. Wouldn’t the union get a blanket policy, rather than having officers get individually covered? If you’re aware of any literature on the subject, I’d appreciate a link.

 

Still, we’re so far away from holding officers accountable for anything in the US that “incrementally making an officer more expensive to insure” is pretty far from where we need to be. I propose we start with “murder is not acceptable behavior for a policeman.”

[Jason]

1 minute ago, TwinIon said:

I hadn’t heard of that before, but that makes sense to me. Doctors get malpractice insurance and it hasn’t destroyed the profession. Of course, when you’re dealing with a union, I’m not sure how that would work exactly. Wouldn’t the union get a blanket policy, rather than having officers get individually covered? If you’re aware of any literature on the subject, I’d appreciate a link.

 

Still, we’re so far away from holding officers accountable for anything in the US that “incrementally making an officer more expensive to insure” is pretty far from where we need to be. I propose we start with “murder is not acceptable behavior for a policeman.”

 

The union getting the insurance and having it come out of union dues seems fine, I feel like the bigger point is to get the taxpayers off the hook for these lawsuits.

[TwinIon]

Just now, Jason said:

The union getting the insurance and having it come out of union dues seems fine, I feel like the bigger point is to get the taxpayers off the hook for these lawsuits.

I guess. I feel like the better solution to get rid of the lawsuits is to make it easier (or even possible) to identify and get rid of bad cops.

 

When you read about stuff like the evidence scandal with the Orange County Sheriff, I care far less about the tax bill for the lawsuits (though it might be significant), and more about being able to get those cops off the streets.

[Jason]

15 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I guess. I feel like the better solution to get rid of the lawsuits is to make it easier (or even possible) to identify and get rid of bad cops.

 

When you read about stuff like the evidence scandal with the Orange County Sheriff, I care far less about the tax bill for the lawsuits (though it might be significant), and more about being able to get those cops off the streets.

 

I would think that making it part of your union dues would incentivize cops to actually crack down on each other, to keep their union dues from exploding to cover big insurance premium hikes.