Ending law enforcement immunity is within California’s reach. Pass Senate Bill 2

The three guilty verdicts handed down in Derek Chauvin's case last month were a uniquely American rarity; a glimmer of justice in a system that too often protects bad cops and compounds the injustice done to victims and their families. Senate Bill 2, currently pending in the California Legislature, seeks to make that justice more permanent by reining in immunity granted to law enforcement officers.

For all the ways California stands out among the states in advancing civil rights, law enforcement accountability is not one of them. This is in large part because the state's most broadly applicable civil rights law, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, has been eroded by court decisions that opened new loopholes to protect violent cops, embolden rogue police officers, and support a "think first, shoot later culture." It's time to get back to the intent, and the letter, of the law.

The Bane Act forbids anyone from interfering with your federal or state constitutional or statutory rights by "threat, intimidation, or coercion." It protects the right to due process, equal protection under the law, and prevents undue bodily restraint or harm for every Californian. It was intended as a bold tool for justice, and it functioned that way for almost two decades.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal's 2012 ruling in Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles, 203 Cal. App. 4th 947, dulled the sharp edge of the law by adding a requirement, beyond the plain language of the Bane Act, that a defendant's use of threats, intimidation or coercion must be independent of the violation of rights. The ruling also includes dicta that only "spiteful" civil rights violations triggered Bane Act protections.

As a result, justice for civil rights violations were suddenly out of reach for countless Californians. Even victims of most unlawful arrests -- even those committed through significant coercion -- have been barred from taking shelter under the Bane Act's protection.

Perhaps the most wayward interpretation of the Bane Act came from , 17 Cal. App. 5th 766 (2017). The ruling placed a new restriction on the scope of the Bane Act, requiring plaintiffs to prove that the defendant acted with "specific intent" to violate their rights. Id. at 801-04.

In order to prove a Bane Act violation, a person must demonstrate that the offending officer not only intended to use excessive force, but also intended to violate the victim's constitutional rights. It is this specific intent requirement that essentially gives rogue police officers a license to kill with impunity, because it is a much higher, and far more difficult to prove, level of culpability than general intent.

For example, if officers were to shoot an individual multiple times in the head, they likely would not be found guilty of excessive force or other violations. The requirements would allow them to claim they did not "specifically intend" to violate the victim's civil rights. Under current case law, it is not enough to demonstrate in court that an officer shot a scared, unarmed kid in the back, using illegal force. A victim must prove that the officer (1) intended to shoot and (2) that he intended to deprive the victim of their civil rights, a hurdle that is all but impossible to prove, barring a verbal admission of guilt from the offending officer.

For example, Santa Cruz police shot and killed a 15-year-old boy while simultaneously tasing him, hitting him with "rubber bullets," and siccing a police dog on him. He and his family lost their Bane Act case because they could not prove that officers had specific intent to violate his rights.

In another inexplicable interpretation of the Bane Act, one court found that The Act applies if an officer's illegal use of force maims, injures or paralyzes; but does not apply if the illegal use of force kills. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal. App. 4th 141 (1995), misconstrued the Bane Act by denying standing to anyone bringing a cause of action for the wrongful death of a person caused by a violation of the Bane Act. That is to say, if an officer's illegal use of force kills instead of injures the victim, they can't be held responsible under the Bane Act.

Because of one bizarre ruling in this one case, individuals who have died due to police brutality in California are barred from justice. Their family can't even seek recovery for the injustice their loved one suffered, they can only recover funeral expenses -- and only if they win their case in court first.

This is the bottom line: Governmental immunity statutes should not apply to civil rights violations. When people are prevented by case law from holding rogue law enforcement officers accountable, injustice abounds; the status quo damages our collective faith in the court system and erodes the rule of law. That's why the California Legislature is advancing a solution to restore the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act to its original intent through SB 2, ending immunities for law enforcement and decertifying officers who commit serious misconduct.

California must immediately act to address its ongoing civil rights crisis, demonstrating to the rest of the nation that justice is within reach. Quickly passing SB 2 will address illegal use of force practices though decertification, and improve California's civil law to ensure there is an adequate and appropriate remedy if and when illegal use of force occurs. With these important changes, holding bad officers like Derek Chauvin accountable for serious misconduct or violating a person's civil rights will finally be the rule, not the exception. 