HB 20 - Expands Protections for Police Officers in Lawsuits - Utah Key Vote

Timeline

Stage Details

Title: Expands Protections for Police Officers in Lawsuits

See How Your Politicians Voted

Title: Expands Protections for Police Officers in Lawsuits

Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to concur with Senate amendments and pass a bill that expands protections for police officers in lawsuits brought against them that result from chases.

Highlights:

  • Specifies that the operator of a “marked authorized emergency vehicle” owes no “duty of care” to an individual who meets any of the following criteria (Sec. 1):
    • Is a suspect in the commission of a crime and is evading, fleeing, or otherwise attempting to elude the operator of a marked authorized emergency vehicle; or
    • Is voluntarily in a motor vehicle with a suspect in the commission of a crime and is evading, fleeing, or otherwise attempting to elude the operator of a marked authorized emergency vehicle.
  • Defines “marked authorized emergency vehicle” as a vehicle that meets the following requirements (Sec. 1):
    • The vehicle has emergency lights affixed to the top of the vehicle; or
    • The vehicle is displaying an identification mark designating the vehicle as the property of an entity that is authorized to operate emergency vehicles in a conspicuous place on both sides of the vehicle.
  • Specifies that the operator of a marked authorized emergency vehicle may be held liable for an individual’s injuries if he or she had “actual intent” to cause harm to the individual in an act that is unrelated to the legitimate object of the arrest (Sec. 1).
  • Defines “actual intent” as a malicious motive to cause injury, not merely an intent to do the act resulting in the injury (Sec. 1).

See How Your Politicians Voted

Title: Expands Protections for Police Officers in Lawsuits

Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to pass a bill that expands protections for police officers in lawsuits brought against them that result from chases.

Highlights:

  • Specifies that the operator of a “marked authorized emergency vehicle” owes no “duty of care” to an individual who meets any of the following criteria (Sec. 1):
    • Is a suspect in the commission of a crime and is evading, fleeing, or otherwise attempting to elude the operator of a marked authorized emergency vehicle; or
    • Is voluntarily in a motor vehicle with a suspect in the commission of a crime and is evading, fleeing, or otherwise attempting to elude the operator of a marked authorized emergency vehicle.
  • Defines “marked authorized emergency vehicle” as a vehicle that meets the following requirements (Sec. 1):
    • The vehicle has emergency lights affixed to the top of the vehicle; or
    • The vehicle is displaying an identification mark designating the vehicle as the property of an entity that is authorized to operate emergency vehicles in a conspicuous place on both sides of the vehicle.
  • Specifies that the operator of a marked authorized emergency vehicle may be held liable for an individual’s injuries if he or she had “actual intent” to cause harm to the individual in an act that is unrelated to the legitimate object of the arrest (Sec. 1).
  • Defines “actual intent” as a malicious motive to cause injury, not merely an intent to do the act resulting in the injury (Sec. 1).

NOTE: THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE BILL, MEANING THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL BILL HAS BEEN REPLACED. THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE SUBSTITUTE BILL TEXT DIFFERS FROM THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THE TEXT CAN VARY GREATLY.

Title: Expands Protections for Police Officers in Lawsuits

arrow_upward