This is in reply to Attorney John Pucci’s July 22 comments criticizing state Sen. John Vellis for saying that the bills to limit qualified immunity for police being considered by the Massachusetts Legislature need more study. Since Mr. Pucci feels the issues are so cut and dried, I’d appreciate his reaction to the following questions.
1. Isn’t this primarily a federal issue applying to judicial interpretations of qualified immunity under the Civil Rights Act of 1871?
2. Why have the Mass. House and Senate adopted such different approaches and wouldn’t the Senate approach of having the immunity tied to a subsequent licensing decertification process be an unconstitutional ex post facto application? Won’t the House approach of applying a nebulous “reasonableness” standard result in much frivolous litigation, the costs of which will be borne by taxpayers?
3. Since some jurisdictions are seeking to defund the police and replace part of their functions with social and other workers, would the more limited immunity also apply to them?
As a retired attorney, these and related issues sure don’t seem cut and dried to me.
Dave Keehn
Leeds