Two weeks ago, a grass-roots group submitted enough certified signatures to place a measure on the November ballot that would require Minneapolis police officers to have personal liability insurance. Now City Council members must decide whether the proposal constitutes a proper amendment to the city's charter, which is the only type of ballot measure allowed in Minneapolis.
Organizers behind the proposed Police Insurance Amendment say it would cut down on police misconduct. The idea is to target cops involved in misconduct lawsuits and settlements. Premiums for them would be so costly that neither the officer nor the city could afford it. That, in turn, would force those officers out of their jobs.
That may sound like a reasonable way to hold officers accountable — but it isn't, for several reasons. Council members should reject it and continue working on other methods to address police misconduct.
The plan's supporters, known as the Committee for Professional Policing, said in a news release that they did careful legal research and "crafted the measure to comport with state and federal laws." Still, questions remain about whether the proposal would violate state laws that require local governments to take legal responsibility and pay damages for incidents that occur on the job.
An additional legal hurdle could be the negotiated police contract language that requires the city to cover officers. Minneapolis currently self-insures by budgeting an amount each year for these situations. The administration and the City Council decide on a case-by-case basis how to handle police misconduct settlements.
Between 2012 and September 2015, Minneapolis paid out $6.6 million on such cases. Covering the cost of individual liability insurance on each officer likely would cost much more than self-insuring.
In the cases of blatantly egregious behavior, the city can choose not to indemnify or defend an officer for misconduct. In those cases, the officer would be left on his or her own to pay for attorneys or any court-ordered damages.
Another problem with the plan: Should Minneapolis adopt individual liability insurance for cops, it would become an island among Minnesota law enforcement agencies and the only U.S. city with such an arrangement. That could discourage officers from working in Minneapolis.
Minneapolis permits ballot measures only as amendments to the city charter, which outlines general government functions. The City Council, which adopts ordinances, will get an opinion on the proposed charter amendment from the city attorney before voting on the matter.
It's understandable that many are frustrated with systems that too often appear to let officers off the hook when they are in the wrong. Those concerns must be addressed. But requiring cops to carry their own liability insurance coverage is not the answer.
