You cannot make this shit up - Two football officials arrested.

[stjaba]

That theory holds for actions that are bound to happen on a fairly regular basis.  How often do you think cops, acting as security guards, are going to arrest members of the officiating crew at a school game?

It is common for law enforcement officers to get sued for actions they take while doing extra time/off-duty work. In Tampa they got sued all the time for incidents arising out of extra time work at nightclubs, for instance.

Obviously if you narrow the specific circumstances to football games, that's going to be rare.

But generally speaking, to summarize my stance, police misconduct cases are uniquely suited to not being settled early. First, the law is heavily in the favor of the officer and the city. The officer may be protected by qualified immunity, and it is extremely unlikely the city itself is liable. Second, often times a city employee defends the case, so the expenses associated with defending the case are low. Third, settling the case may be could be detrimental to the city in future police misconduct cases because that could be evidence relevant to municipal (as opposed to individual) liability.

Edited: And 4th, maintaining an aggressive posture makes sense because law enforcement work inherently poses a high very risk of injuries, wrongful arrests, and other mishaps to arrestees. Accordingly, to ward off future suits (whether baseless or otherwise) it is important to maintain the reputation of not settling, at least not early on. 

[stjaba]

Not only becuase of the potential legal liability but also because of the reputation risk of defending this conduct.

What reputation risk is there in defending this conduct?

[Admiral Yi]

Do cops have qualified protection for work performed off duty?

[Malthus]

Aside from heaping on punitive damages,

Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power.  Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.

The quantum may or may not be sufficient to make it worthwhile. Compared to US punitive damages claims, Canadian ones are still very low, even when awarded.

[Barrister]

Aside from heaping on punitive damages,

Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power.  Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.

I very much doubt that to be the case.

[crazy canuck]

Not only becuase of the potential legal liability but also because of the reputation risk of defending this conduct.

What reputation risk is there in defending this conduct?

Assuming there is no defence that could separate the employer from this conduct such as acting outside the scope of employment then the reputation risk is defending conduct that to any reasonable person would be outrageous and high handed.  To the extent an any entity cares about its public reputation this is probably not a battle they want to fight.  These are very bad facts.  Nobody is going to think what this cop did was in anyway justifiable.

Edited: And 4th, maintaining an aggressive posture makes sense because law enforcement work inherently poses a high very risk of injuries, wrongful arrests, and other mishaps to arrestees. Accordingly, to ward off future suits (whether baseless or otherwise) it is important to maintain the reputation of not settling, at least not early on.

What risk is there of future suits brought by officials who were wrongfully detained?

[crazy canuck]

Aside from heaping on punitive damages,

Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power.  Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.

The quantum may or may not be sufficient to make it worthwhile. Compared to US punitive damages claims, Canadian ones are still very low, even when awarded.

Agreed.  But that does not mean that aggravated and punative damages in Canada are peanuts.  But more to the point it is a very good reason for an entity in the US to act proactively in a case with these kinds of facts.

[crazy canuck]

Aside from heaping on punitive damages,

Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power.  Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.

I very much doubt that to be the case.

Oh ya.  When is the last time you defended a claim for punative and aggravated damages?

[Malthus]

Aside from heaping on punitive damages,

Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power.  Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.

The quantum may or may not be sufficient to make it worthwhile. Compared to US punitive damages claims, Canadian ones are still very low, even when awarded.

Agreed.  But that does not mean that aggravated and punative damages in Canada are peanuts.  But more to the point it is a very good reason for an entity in the US to act proactively in a case with these kinds of facts.

Heh, get this thing in front of a US jury, and anything can happen. 

[stjaba]

Assuming there is no defence that could separate the employer from this conduct such as acting outside the scope of employment then the reputation risk is defending conduct that to any reasonable person would be outrageous and high handed.  To the extent an any entity cares about its public reputation this is probably not a battle they want to fight.  These are very bad facts.  Nobody is going to think what this cop did was in anyway justifiable.

I would think these factors would matter possibly for a corporation, but not for a town. No one is going to move out of Covington, LA because the city fights some lawsuit. People aren't going to stop paying taxes because of a lawsuit. The considerations for a city are different than they are for a company.

Edited: And 4th, maintaining an aggressive posture makes sense because law enforcement work inherently poses a high very risk of injuries, wrongful arrests, and other mishaps to arrestees. Accordingly, to ward off future suits (whether baseless or otherwise) it is important to maintain the reputation of not settling, at least not early on.

What risk is there of future suits brought by officials who were wrongfully detained?

There is a risk of future lawsuits in general. The specific facts on the ground don't really matter that much as far as generating a reputation for settling early/easily or not. If the City settles some high publicity lawsuit preemptively that will certainly encourage more lawsuits, even if the facts are relatively different in other cases. At the end of the day, it's a false arrest case, and I guarantee you the officers of Covington have arrested plenty of people on BS charges like they have with the officials.

[OttoVonBismarck]

This is up there with Why the North doesn't vote Tory by Sheilbh as the most boring thread in all of Languish.

[citizen k]

This is up there with Why the North doesn't vote Tory by Sheilbh as the most boring thread in all of Languish.

Injustice bores you? Disenfranchisement of Northern England bores you?

[Darth Wagtaros]

This is up there with Why the North doesn't vote Tory by Sheilbh as the most boring thread in all of Languish.

Injustice bores you? Disenfranchisement of Northern England bores you?

No, and yes.

[Admiral Yi]

This is up there with Why the North doesn't vote Tory by Sheilbh as the most boring thread in all of Languish.

Clearly you missed mongers' poll on "What is Your Favorite Shrubbery."

[Eddie Teach]

I would've thought all threads were equally boring to Otto as he doesn't actually read them.