A proposal to curb police violence by asking all law enforcement officers in a Midwest city to carry professional liability insurance has met with strong resistance in the form of a legal fight.
Opponents of the proposal, which would be included as a Minneapolis ballot initiative in the November election, successfully urged the City Council to block it from the ballot as inappropriate for consideration. A majority of council members were persuaded by City Attorney Susan Segal that it should not be included as ballot initiatives on city policies are not permitted under Minneapolis’ charger.
Supporters took the decision to court Friday, arguing that voters have a right to weigh in on the proposal. Hennepin County Judge Susan Robiner listened to nearly three hours of arguments from attorneys representing the backers of the initiative, urging her to put the issue on the ballot.
Bruce Nestor, an attorney representing another ballot issue relating to minimum wage, said the city’s legal interpretation of the ban is too narrow. Minneapolis’ charter, he said, includes provisions for items beyond its scope, such as fire-prevention efforts and regulations for midwives – and the proposed ballot initiatives would have a direct relation to the health and welfare of the city.
Tim Phillips, an attorney representing the Committee for Professional Policing, agreed and said he disputes the city’s assertion that the police insurance initiative would conflict with state law.
The group, which wrote the initiative, says the requirement would cut down on cases of officer misconduct because individual police officers involved in the cases would bear a financial responsibility for their actions, in the form of insurance premiums.
While individual liability insurance for police officers is available, it is carried on a voluntary basis. Proposals like this one would make it a condition of employment in the city. The city would cover the cost of basic insurance, but the individual officer would pick up the tab on any premium increases due to misconduct.
This isn’t the first time insurance has been called on to curb the problems of inappropriate policing. A University of Chicago report released this spring says insurers are attempting to limit the liability of the police departments they cover by providing risk management materials to insureds.
“One of the first things I found was this pamphlet from
Travelers Insurance about how to do a strip search, and I just thought people in my world have no idea that this stuff is out there and it’s really fascinating,” said University of Chicago assistant law professor John Rappaport.
Another law professor, Joanna Schwartz of UCLA, argues that “insurers can play the role of an honest broker to force a city to learn from its police department's mistakes.”
"They are highly motivated to reform because it affects their bottom line, and they're not constrained by any of the political counterforces that could prevent the city council or mayor from pushing hard on a law enforcement agency to reform," Schwartz said.
Yet both ideas have received pushback.
By placing much of the financial strain on insurers, rather than police departments, some argue that the pressure to reform officer practices is too indirect to effect meaningful change.
As for the push for personal liability insurance, police departments say the practice would cause police officers to be overly cautious in an attempt to avoid premium increases.
“Anybody can get in the squad car and drive around and put the blinders on, and not investigate suspicious circumstances,” said Lt. Bob Kroll of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis. “If you don’t do that proactive police work, your likelihood of being sued is a lot less.”
Robiner is likely to issue her decision on the matter as early as this week, as the case faces a tight deadline.
Related stories:
Calls for mandatory police liability insurance gain momentum
Police lawsuit fears prompt Philadelphia to take out $1.2M policy Democratic Convention
