In April 2021, New Mexico took a historic step in protecting the civil rights of its residents by enacting the New Mexico Civil Rights Act (NMCRA).
This groundbreaking legislation marks a significant milestone in our state’s commitment to ensuring accountability and justice for individuals who experience violations of their constitutional rights. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act was signed into law on April 7, 2021, by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.
The act aims to provide a state-level avenue for individuals to seek redress for civil rights violations, offering an additional layer of protection beyond federal remedies. Prior to the NMCRA, individuals in New Mexico had to rely on federal law for recourse in cases involving civil rights violations. That was problematic due to the federal doctrine of qualified immunity, the heightened standards applicable to federal constitutional violations, and the difficulty of navigating federal court rules.
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, from being held personally liable for actions taken in the course of their duties, as long as those actions do not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights. The doctrine has been the subject of intense debate and scrutiny, especially in cases involving alleged police misconduct. Qualified immunity is rooted in the principle of protecting officials who make reasonable mistakes. It requires that an official’s actions be judged under an “objective reasonableness” standard, considering whether a reasonable person in the same position would have known their conduct violated a constitutional right.
For a plaintiff to overcome qualified immunity, they must demonstrate that the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident. This means that, based on existing legal precedent, the unlawfulness of the action should have been apparent to a reasonable official. Qualified immunity serves as a defense against civil damages, preventing government officials from being personally financially liable for actions taken in the course of their duties. It does not, however, shield officials from injunctive relief or other non-monetary forms of accountability.
One major criticism of qualified immunity is the high bar set for rights to be considered “clearly established.” Courts often require nearly identical previous cases to establish clarity, making it challenging for plaintiffs to overcome this hurdle. Critics argue that the application of qualified immunity is subjective, leading to inconsistent outcomes. The determination of what constitutes “reasonable” behavior can vary, and the doctrine allows for considerable judicial discretion, potentially resulting in unfair protection for government officials.
Qualified immunity has been accused of hindering accountability for government officials, particularly in cases of alleged police misconduct. The shield it provides may discourage victims from pursuing legal action, and it can leave officials shielded even when their actions are widely perceived as unjust or excessive. Some argue that qualified immunity also weakens the deterrent effect on government officials of our civil justice system. Without personal accountability, officials may feel less compelled to exercise caution and adhere to constitutional standards in their actions.
In response to the criticisms, there have been calls for reforming or abolishing qualified immunity. Proposed reforms include adjusting the “clearly established” standard to provide more clarity for plaintiffs, limiting the scope of the doctrine, or eliminating it altogether as was recently done by the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.
One of the most notable features of the New Mexico Civil Rights Act is the elimination of qualified immunity for government officials. Qualified immunity has been a controversial legal doctrine that has shielded public officials from personal liability in civil rights lawsuits. With its removal, the NMCRA allows individuals to sue government employees, including law enforcement officers, for violating their constitutional rights without having their claims precluded by the high bar of proving the right at issue was “clearly established.”
The New Mexico Civil Rights Act empowers individuals to seek monetary damages for civil rights violations. This is a significant departure from federal law, where damages against government officials were often limited. The NMCRA opens the door for individuals to receive just compensation for the harm they have endured due to violations of their constitutional rights. However, the damages available under the NMCRA are capped at certain amounts depending on the year in which a civil rights violation occurs.
While federal laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) exist to address civil rights violations, the New Mexico Civil Rights Act provides an additional layer of protection at the state level. This means that individuals can pursue claims under the New Mexico State law, potentially offering a more accessible and specifically tailored legal remedy for certain cases. The New Mexico Constitution tends to offer broader protections than the federal constitution, such that remedies under New Mexico law tend to be more favorable.
Vicarious liability is a broader legal concept that extends beyond the employer-employee relationship. It holds one party responsible for the actions of another, emphasizing relationships where one party has control or authority over the actions of another. Respondeat superior, latin for “let the master answer,” is a specific form of vicarious liability applicable to employer-employee relationships. Both doctrines focus on attributing liability to one party for the actions of another.
The New Mexico Civil Rights Act represents a crucial step toward governmental accountability and broader protection of civil liberties. By eliminating qualified immunity, providing for monetary damages, and allowing for state-level remedies and vicarious liability, the NMCRA empowers individuals to seek justice and hold accountable those who violate their constitutional rights. This legislation is expected to have a profound impact on law enforcement practices, encouraging increased transparency and accountability. It sends a clear message that civil rights violations will not be tolerated in New Mexico and that individuals have the means to seek redress for any such violations. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act represents a significant stride toward ensuring justice and accountability for individuals who experience civil rights violations.
Civil rights violations by law enforcement and correctional facilities remain a persistent concern in today’s society. Understanding these violations is crucial for fostering accountability and advocating for justice. Here, we explore some of the most prevalent types of civil rights violations perpetrated by police and within jails or prisons.
Perhaps the most widely recognized civil rights violation, excessive use of force occurs when law enforcement employs more force than is deemed reasonable. This can lead to severe injuries or even death, particularly when disproportionate force is used against unarmed or non-threatening individuals. Within correctional facilities, excessive force can manifest as physical abuse by staff against inmates. Such actions violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In New Mexico, the government is responsible for adequately training and supervising its officers so that they use non-lethal force whenever possible and to only use force that is proportional to the safety risk at hand.
Police: Individuals have the right to be free from unlawful arrests. False arrests occur when law enforcement lacks probable cause or proper legal justification. Wrongful detentions involve unlawfully prolonging an individual’s detention without legal basis. Individuals in custody maintain the right to due process. Wrongful detentions can occur within correctional facilities when individuals are held beyond their lawful release date without proper justification.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Violations occur when law enforcement conducts searches without a warrant, probable cause, or consent. In correctional settings, unlawful searches may involve invasive procedures or searches conducted without proper justification, infringing upon an individual’s right to privacy.
Violations of the Due Process Clause in the context of failure to protect detainees refer to instances where individuals in custody are subjected to harm, danger, or inadequate care, and their constitutional right to due process is compromised. The Due Process Clause, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, ensures that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
In the context of detainees, due process violations may occur when authorities fail to take reasonable steps to protect individuals in their custody, leading to foreseeable harm or danger. Here are some key aspects of how this violation may manifest:
Authorities are responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of individuals in their custody. Failure to implement adequate safety measures, such as proper security protocols, supervision, or the separation of detainees when necessary, can result in preventable harm. If authorities are aware of specific risks or threats to a detainee’s safety and fail to take reasonable steps to address those risks, it can constitute a violation of due process. This may include ignoring known threats from other detainees or staff members.
In some instances, police may deny individuals access to necessary medical care, violating their right to adequate health services. In correctional facilities, the denial of proper medical care can lead to severe health consequences for detainees or inmates. This violates either the Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Law enforcement and correctional personnel must be adequately trained to handle the responsibilities associated with the care and custody of individuals. Failure to provide proper training or supervision that leads to harm can be considered a failure to uphold due process.
Indifference or deliberate indifference to substantial risks to the safety of detainees is a key element in establishing a due process violation. If authorities are aware of risks but exhibit deliberate disregard for the well-being of those in their custody, it may constitute a breach of due process. Authorities have a duty to investigate and address complaints from detainees regarding their safety or well-being. Ignoring or dismissing valid complaints without proper investigation may contribute to a due process violation. The conditions of confinement must be humane and meet basic standards. Inadequate facilities, overcrowding, or failure to provide essential services can infringe on the due process rights of detainees.
Have your civil rights been violated? At Prince, Schmidt, Baca & Woods, LLP, we’re here to be your advocates, champions, and experienced legal allies in the pursuit of justice. Our team of dedicated attorneys specializes in civil rights law, passionately committed to ensuring that victims of violations receive the compensation they rightfully deserve.
