State Sen. Roland Gutierrez is having a powerful session. In holding weekly press conferences with the grieving Uvalde families at the state Capitol, Gutierrez is ensuring their voices are heard and their suffering is witnessed.
With plans to file 21 bills in honor of the 21 victims in the May 24 Robb Elementary School massacre, Gutierrez, a San Antonio Democrat who represents Uvalde, is pushing key reforms that would reduce gun violence and assist the families.
While these reforms are unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled Legislature, they represent meaningful policy responses to a calamity that never should have happened; offer a countervailing legislative and moral view on the balance of gun rights and gun safety in our state; and lay the groundwork for future reforms. Yes, that could take years, even generations. But as Gloria Cazares, whose daughter Jackie was murdered at Robb, told us in December: “I will continue to fight for her until the day I die.”
We have editorialized in support of several of the measures Gutierrez has put forward: the creation of a Uvalde victims’ compensation fund, raising the purchase age for firearms from 18 to 21; providing avenues for law enforcement officers to remove firearms when people are deemed a danger.
But we had stayed silent on his push to end qualified immunity for law enforcement officers in Texas because we wanted to better understand the repercussions of such a change. Qualified immunity, a federal judicial doctrine, essentially shields officers accused of civil rights violations.
We get it. Police officers make split-second decisions and could be the subject of any number of frivolous claims. And the vast majority of law enforcement officers serve their communities at incredible personal risk. But as Alexandra Klein, a professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law, told our Editorial Board, qualified immunity has created unreasonably high hurdles when civil rights claims are alleged.
Plaintiffs have to show officers violated a person’s constitutional rights and that a reasonable person would know these actions were a violation at the time. Courts, in turn, have taken very narrow interpretations of the specific facts of cases to determine if precedent was established.
“You can sue a lawyer for malpractice,” Gutierrez said. “You can sue a doctor for malpractice. You can sue a priest. You can sue a teacher, but you cannot sue a cop for ordinary negligence.”
Bodycam footage from Uvalde and Memphis, Tenn., where police brutalized Tyre Nichols, has underscored the need to end qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. There must be a credible way to pursue civil suits against law enforcement officers.
As to the concern of frivolous lawsuits, we are unmoved. If a lawsuit lacks merit, it will be rejected.
San Antonio Express-News
