Real talk: this feels like exactly the kind of behavior that could result in increased premiums or perhaps be grounds for being deemed uninsurable if we were to push our city council to mandate that our cops carry professional liability insurance.
Here's [more info](https://www.reddit.com/r/Louisville/comments/1df0ic6/comment/l8higem/) for folks interested in taking a real simple step to help push our city council to act.
It's a very good question, this idea was first proposed in late 2020, there are several bills currently working their way through committees in several states, but that process takes time so it would be good to get the conversation started here, especially because it appears the justice department's consent decree is going to fall pretty far short of the reforms needed to actually rein in abuse.
I just have trouble believing that creating liabilities for police, and requiring them to be insured, is an answer. I have no models where I have seen that approach make major change. I have dealt with doctors and hospitals every day of my career and am confident high quality of care does not correlate with greater legal accountability/ legal risks. Have seen great malpractice risks drive physicians to move to locales where liability was less burdensome, those creating access challenges. And it is not because they intend to hurt patients, but rather because they thought the environment was not fair to them.
Yeah, I don't blame you for your skepticism. We're living in a city where despite decades of awareness and outcry nothing that's been tried thus far has worked to rein in police misconduct.
To your point about your experience seeing the results in the medical field, I appreciate the perspective. There's a key difference between how medical malpractice is handled vs how this proposal works:
The base cost of the insurance with no additions to the premium based on past behavior would be covered in total by the city. The officer would only be responsible for paying the difference between that base premium and the additional rate incurred as the direct result of their actions. The 'good cops' would see no increase of costs ever.
There isn't a heightened vigilance in that environment, it's just that the repercussions for misbehaving fall onto the officer themself, and not onto our city as a whole. That's placing accountability right where it belongs. And tying action and consequence together is the only kind of thing that brings the teeth of accountability to malfeasance.
Is this the only mechanism by which that can be achieved? No, not at all, but it is one of very few things we can tackle entirely at the local level, without the need for statewide or national intervention.
Does it also assume each payout is valid. I have seen plenty of cases settled because of the nuisance factor. I am sure the city has some right now. And once the case is filed the insurer (rather than the doctor or cop) drives the decision making. Hence the sense that the environment is unfair.
Speculating here, but what you're describing seems like it would probably be less common with an insurance company on the hook for the payout.
Their core competency is avoiding superfluous payouts, and they assemble legal teams who specialize in exactly that. Our city attorneys don't have nearly the same resources or ability to focus their specialty like that.
Oh, that's just my opinion having sat in on a few of the community meetings with DOJ and having looked at outcomes in other cities that operate under consent decrees. I'm far from an expert, but the result of previous CD implementations is pretty far away from perfect turnarounds.
Sent a message to our council person - he got back to me that the AG's opinion is that this would violate state law.
So maybe direct people to contact their state rep's ?
Thank you so much for doing this outreach and sharing your findings. That's hugely helpful. Do you mind if I ask which councilperson you reached out to? For bonus points if they happened to mention which state statute was at issue there that'd be extremely helpful to know too.
You're an absolute rockstar for reaching out, it's been really heartening to see how much care and concern folks have for the city as a whole.
It was Ben Reno-Weber and he did not mention the specifc statute - only Ky state law.
This has to change, so I'm not doing as much as I probably should be. But thanks anyway-
Oh excellent. I'm glad he's being responsive and also hearing about this from multiple sources. I've reached out to him myself to try and get more info from the county attorney.
"Davis failed to stop at a stop sign and his vehicle left the road "at approximately 50-60 mph striking two trailers" in a nearby parking lot."
Thank goodness they were only 2 parked trailers and not cars with people in them! I wonder what the speed limit is in that area and if he just blatantly disregarded the stop sign.
They still aren't supposed to take their cars across county lines either. But it seems more and more of them ignore that rule. Love that we pay for them to save gas.
Good call. I went and checked and sure enough they have changed it. They can now take them to the neighboring county. I had noticed a decrease in the amount of cruisers stored at county lines in the last 8 months. This explains it.
LMPD SOP 4.14.3 ASSIGNMENT OF TAKE-HOME VEHICLE Officers who have completed one (1) year of sworn service with the LMPD may be assigned a departmental vehicle. The following policy also applies to professional staff who are assigned a departmental vehicle. Members who are residing within the boundaries of Jefferson County, Kentucky will be allowed take-home use of their assigned vehicle. Members whose primary residence is in the contiguous counties of Jefferson County, Kentucky, are permitted to park their assigned vehicle at their primary residence while off-duty and use the vehicle for travel to and from work. These Kentucky counties include Bullitt, Spencer, Shelby, Oldham, Meade, and Hardin. Assigned vehicles are not permitted to be used outside of Jefferson County for personal use while off-duty. Members who are not residing in the Kentucky counties listed above are not permitted to drive their assigned vehicle outside of Jefferson County. Members who reside out-of-state, in another Kentucky county not listen ado veror ho ch of not ho Courty Ke in the a a locateh ide roer boy the equise is pation their commander.
I thought that too but it says he's a detective. Maybe I'm just assuming too much but I'd think a detective would be permitted to drive an unmarked car outside of the county to conduct interviews. Granted, they have no jurisdiction once they leave. But I'd also imagine that if he's out there for work then his superiors would have already known that. It's not like these guys work for free.
They can’t just stop an issue a ticket. Misdemeanor varies and Felony is a different story. The only way this is null and void is if they have an agreement with a neighboring agency.
See you think detective means something special but detective in the lmpd means you've been promoted once since you were actually made a peace officer. If you look at the salary documentation that the city maintains there is no detective in the police force. It's a meaningless term.
Dont care for the policy either. However, who the hell wants to he a cop in louisville of all places? If a little free gas keeps/recruits a few cops in good with it.
Hard disagree. It is already a big issue that a large quantity of cops do not live in the actual city they are supposed to serve. The rule helps incentivize people to actually live in the city. The fact that money that comes from our pockets is going to help save money for cops who do not live in the city is stupid.
You can disagree, but that doesn't change the facts. Louisville Police used to have that rule back in the day, and it was hard to recruit and retain, so it was dropped.
Edit: removed "we" because that wording could make it sound like I'm a cop.
You're right I wouldn't want to work for LMPD either, you'd join knowing your co-workers are morons at best or criminals at worst.
LMPD needs to clean itself up if it ever hopes to attract high quality workers.
And it's a pretty rough competition, but we're really scrapping it out.
It's always fun to see where the city and state really shine. It's troubling that it's generally things like child abuse and police lawsuit payouts. But don't worry, between Greenberg and the State Assembly we're diversifying and innovating the race to the bottom constantly.
Maybe this is why the Mt. Washington chief of police is getting fired. This is pure speculation. But I saw an article that said the Mt. Washington chief of police was fired as of July 1st. The article didn't say why. I can see them trying to cover it up or sweep it under the rug. Thin blue line, cops don't tell on other cops shit.
All right everybody ... Have faith the system will allot the maximum fully-paid "administrative" time off as possible.
I'm sure he will learn from that fully paid time off from work.
Sounds like he was drunk driving.
I can understand a 16 year old running a stop sign and hitting trailers, but a cop in his 40s should have better judgemental.
Unless, of course, his judgement was impaired by drugs or alcohol. That's also a good motive to flee the scene so you don't get a DUI.
Wreck a car, cause property damage, and flee the scene. Enjoy your vacation
Real talk: this feels like exactly the kind of behavior that could result in increased premiums or perhaps be grounds for being deemed uninsurable if we were to push our city council to mandate that our cops carry professional liability insurance. Here's [more info](https://www.reddit.com/r/Louisville/comments/1df0ic6/comment/l8higem/) for folks interested in taking a real simple step to help push our city council to act.
You’re doing good work, friend
Curious where else this has been required and did it produce the projected results?
It's a very good question, this idea was first proposed in late 2020, there are several bills currently working their way through committees in several states, but that process takes time so it would be good to get the conversation started here, especially because it appears the justice department's consent decree is going to fall pretty far short of the reforms needed to actually rein in abuse.
I just have trouble believing that creating liabilities for police, and requiring them to be insured, is an answer. I have no models where I have seen that approach make major change. I have dealt with doctors and hospitals every day of my career and am confident high quality of care does not correlate with greater legal accountability/ legal risks. Have seen great malpractice risks drive physicians to move to locales where liability was less burdensome, those creating access challenges. And it is not because they intend to hurt patients, but rather because they thought the environment was not fair to them.
Yeah, I don't blame you for your skepticism. We're living in a city where despite decades of awareness and outcry nothing that's been tried thus far has worked to rein in police misconduct. To your point about your experience seeing the results in the medical field, I appreciate the perspective. There's a key difference between how medical malpractice is handled vs how this proposal works: The base cost of the insurance with no additions to the premium based on past behavior would be covered in total by the city. The officer would only be responsible for paying the difference between that base premium and the additional rate incurred as the direct result of their actions. The 'good cops' would see no increase of costs ever. There isn't a heightened vigilance in that environment, it's just that the repercussions for misbehaving fall onto the officer themself, and not onto our city as a whole. That's placing accountability right where it belongs. And tying action and consequence together is the only kind of thing that brings the teeth of accountability to malfeasance. Is this the only mechanism by which that can be achieved? No, not at all, but it is one of very few things we can tackle entirely at the local level, without the need for statewide or national intervention.
Does it also assume each payout is valid. I have seen plenty of cases settled because of the nuisance factor. I am sure the city has some right now. And once the case is filed the insurer (rather than the doctor or cop) drives the decision making. Hence the sense that the environment is unfair.
Speculating here, but what you're describing seems like it would probably be less common with an insurance company on the hook for the payout. Their core competency is avoiding superfluous payouts, and they assemble legal teams who specialize in exactly that. Our city attorneys don't have nearly the same resources or ability to focus their specialty like that.
You would be surprised how often insurers settle because is cheaper than pursuing a defense.
Thanks for the thoughts, it would be fascinating to see some numbers about that if you've got them.
Also, where are you getting your information on the consent decree?
Oh, that's just my opinion having sat in on a few of the community meetings with DOJ and having looked at outcomes in other cities that operate under consent decrees. I'm far from an expert, but the result of previous CD implementations is pretty far away from perfect turnarounds.
Sent a message to our council person - he got back to me that the AG's opinion is that this would violate state law. So maybe direct people to contact their state rep's ?
Thank you so much for doing this outreach and sharing your findings. That's hugely helpful. Do you mind if I ask which councilperson you reached out to? For bonus points if they happened to mention which state statute was at issue there that'd be extremely helpful to know too. You're an absolute rockstar for reaching out, it's been really heartening to see how much care and concern folks have for the city as a whole.
It was Ben Reno-Weber and he did not mention the specifc statute - only Ky state law. This has to change, so I'm not doing as much as I probably should be. But thanks anyway-
Oh excellent. I'm glad he's being responsive and also hearing about this from multiple sources. I've reached out to him myself to try and get more info from the county attorney.
Time for another raise and power point training
Yeah, let’s shut down public transportation altogether so we can give these CHUDs even more money.
"Davis failed to stop at a stop sign and his vehicle left the road "at approximately 50-60 mph striking two trailers" in a nearby parking lot." Thank goodness they were only 2 parked trailers and not cars with people in them! I wonder what the speed limit is in that area and if he just blatantly disregarded the stop sign.
https://preview.redd.it/54d6uookgx8d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d40e25245242fcdcd256e8cf23799171f1fcc27 25mph
Also the intersection is a three way intersection with one stop sign turning onto Landis lane. I smell DUI and he ran to avoid getting busted for it.
Oh wow! Yikes!
So that's automatically reckless driving. He should get his license suspended as well.
Is this the same ass hat that manslaughtered a kid in Portland in an unmarked car while off duty? Pretty sure that pos literally got away with murder
https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/pedestrian-hit-unmarked-lmpd-vehicle-police-investigating/417-7db1c3a2-0bd5-4350-b706-7b226460df66
Nah pretty sure that was lauder who is also caught up in one of the sexual harassment scandals.
https://preview.redd.it/3he05n02sx8d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c101702ce03b843e53485ab78b87840833fed9f6
They still aren't supposed to take their cars across county lines either. But it seems more and more of them ignore that rule. Love that we pay for them to save gas.
Thats good to know but it seems few LMPD care about rules and regulations these days.
Well shit. They changed the SOP. They can now take them out of Jefferson county. More of our taxpayer money subsidizing the cops
I see a LMPD cruiser getting on I71 at exit 22 in La Grange several mornings a month. I wonder if that policy has changed?
Good call. I went and checked and sure enough they have changed it. They can now take them to the neighboring county. I had noticed a decrease in the amount of cruisers stored at county lines in the last 8 months. This explains it. LMPD SOP 4.14.3 ASSIGNMENT OF TAKE-HOME VEHICLE Officers who have completed one (1) year of sworn service with the LMPD may be assigned a departmental vehicle. The following policy also applies to professional staff who are assigned a departmental vehicle. Members who are residing within the boundaries of Jefferson County, Kentucky will be allowed take-home use of their assigned vehicle. Members whose primary residence is in the contiguous counties of Jefferson County, Kentucky, are permitted to park their assigned vehicle at their primary residence while off-duty and use the vehicle for travel to and from work. These Kentucky counties include Bullitt, Spencer, Shelby, Oldham, Meade, and Hardin. Assigned vehicles are not permitted to be used outside of Jefferson County for personal use while off-duty. Members who are not residing in the Kentucky counties listed above are not permitted to drive their assigned vehicle outside of Jefferson County. Members who reside out-of-state, in another Kentucky county not listen ado veror ho ch of not ho Courty Ke in the a a locateh ide roer boy the equise is pation their commander.
I thought that too but it says he's a detective. Maybe I'm just assuming too much but I'd think a detective would be permitted to drive an unmarked car outside of the county to conduct interviews. Granted, they have no jurisdiction once they leave. But I'd also imagine that if he's out there for work then his superiors would have already known that. It's not like these guys work for free.
Cops have jurisdiction in the entire state 24/7.
Not really
When do they not have jurisdiction?
They can’t just stop an issue a ticket. Misdemeanor varies and Felony is a different story. The only way this is null and void is if they have an agreement with a neighboring agency.
I believe you are correct. To ticket someone you have to be in uniform or a marked car. But they always have arrest power.
Most agencies have a policy that states they have to act when a serious offense is occurring, failure to do so could lead to being fired
I’ve seen way too many drunk cops on power trips to enjoy that nuance of our legal system
See you think detective means something special but detective in the lmpd means you've been promoted once since you were actually made a peace officer. If you look at the salary documentation that the city maintains there is no detective in the police force. It's a meaningless term.
Indeed, such was my assumption.
Dont care for the policy either. However, who the hell wants to he a cop in louisville of all places? If a little free gas keeps/recruits a few cops in good with it.
Hard disagree. It is already a big issue that a large quantity of cops do not live in the actual city they are supposed to serve. The rule helps incentivize people to actually live in the city. The fact that money that comes from our pockets is going to help save money for cops who do not live in the city is stupid.
You can disagree, but that doesn't change the facts. Louisville Police used to have that rule back in the day, and it was hard to recruit and retain, so it was dropped. Edit: removed "we" because that wording could make it sound like I'm a cop.
You're right I wouldn't want to work for LMPD either, you'd join knowing your co-workers are morons at best or criminals at worst. LMPD needs to clean itself up if it ever hopes to attract high quality workers.
Sadly, far too many cops looking to transfer are doing so because they were shitty in their last department.
Once again… The LMPD is making sure they remain the worst law enforcement agency in the nation.
And it's a pretty rough competition, but we're really scrapping it out. It's always fun to see where the city and state really shine. It's troubling that it's generally things like child abuse and police lawsuit payouts. But don't worry, between Greenberg and the State Assembly we're diversifying and innovating the race to the bottom constantly.
Can't wait for him to be named the new chief soon
Maybe this is why the Mt. Washington chief of police is getting fired. This is pure speculation. But I saw an article that said the Mt. Washington chief of police was fired as of July 1st. The article didn't say why. I can see them trying to cover it up or sweep it under the rug. Thin blue line, cops don't tell on other cops shit.
I just saw that as well but I am sure there is more corruption. lol
Someone took their car past county lines. Thought that was a no-no
I’m certain he was in fear for his life
Dude looks drunk as hell in his mugshot.
All right everybody ... Have faith the system will allot the maximum fully-paid "administrative" time off as possible. I'm sure he will learn from that fully paid time off from work.
Sounds like he was drunk driving. I can understand a 16 year old running a stop sign and hitting trailers, but a cop in his 40s should have better judgemental. Unless, of course, his judgement was impaired by drugs or alcohol. That's also a good motive to flee the scene so you don't get a DUI.
He won’t do a single day.
He'll do at least 14 days, of paid leave.