My website could use a better design, Roger? Geez, that is the understatement of the day. It looks like it was built in 1995. You have me there.

To paraphrase Walter, when we jam cases into a serious victim mold that does not fit, we not only do a serious disservice to genuine victims, but also cause listeners to tune out our voices when we call attention to the real victims. Jurors that read about this woman getting a million bucks are walk in rolling their eyes about the system when they are impaneled for one of my juries.

A half a mil to defend this case, only if you are incompetent or your hourlies are higher than BO’a ego.

Beyond stupid.

If you mean it is “beyond stupid” that the tax payers are on the hook for the illegal actions of law enforcement officers, I agree. The taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay this – the officers should.

All of the officers apparently had training that told them that looking up a person’s information without an investigative reason is against the law. The database which the officers used has a warning on the login screen telling them it was against Federal and State law to look up a person’s information without an investigative reason.

This was not an accident by some well intentioned cops. This was a blatant disregard for the law.

Law abiding citizens should not have to pay for the illegal actions of cops who don’t obey the law. The fine for the offense is $2,500 which is not so high or outlandish that it would force the cops into bankruptcy.

As for those who think this is akin to being approached in a bar or something, the woman received a call from an ex boyfriend after she had moved from the area. The boyfriend had gotten the information from a policeman friend who looked it up for him. There is no correlation to being approached in a bar and turning someone down and having your name and address available to people.

Take the money from the cops – not the taxpayer.

Does it not bother anyone on the egalitarian left that invariably this money winds up coming out of the taxpayers’ hides?

And for all this “torture”, she gets $1,000,000 in tax payer money!!!

Beyond stupid.

You’ve won millions as a personal injury lawyer, but this article is about collecting under a law in effect to prevent abuse of power. So what’s the angle in slamming me for suggesting people shouldn’t be looking up DL info (physical attributes, address, phone, pictures) and harassing someone when it’s clearly not part of their job?

Also, you may want to consider a new web designer for a refresh.

I think you discount how corrosive this sort of abuse of authority is to respect for the law and how dangerous it is to foster a law enforcement culture in which those supposedly protecting and serving are permitted to operate as if the rules do not apply to them. Law enforcement are not infrequently called on to make life-and-death decisions; toleration of loose professional ethics is going to have real consequences. Without real damages, there is no deterrent for this misconduct; without the deterrent you’ll get more of the same and worse.

Walter:

Regarding gruesome physical injuries, I think it is pretty hard to meaningfully compare those cases with this incident. I practice products liability personal injury on the defense side, and, to grossly generalize, the difficulty in getting damages in personal injury cases has more to do with the quality of proof on oft-complicated issues like medical causation and ambiguities as to fault or responsibility, and similar issues. In short, there tends to be serious disputes about whether or to what extent a defendant is liable for said “gruesome physical injuries.” Here, in contrast, very little discovery already shows that there’s no question about liability for the conduct in question.

Perhaps, you simply think that the damages should be lower regardless. I’m open to that possibility; I’m not necessarily convinced that the statutory damage model at issue here is beyond criticism. But, for the reasons articulated in response to Ron above, I’m not particularly bothered by the damages in this particular case. I want to see a very large deterrent in instances like this, both because of the consequences likely to flow from permissiveness and because I think this sort of misconduct generally avoids detection and, therefore, cannot be adequately addressed on a case-by-case basis in the way that litigation involving physical injuries can.

Bob:

If there is a large enough deterrent, the actual wrongdoers will be punished in the end, in the sense that large damages will motivate the relevant governmental authorities to properly train their employees, ensure that that the training is adhered to, and eliminate those employees who fail to do so. Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument would amount to a sort-of super soverign immunity that eliminates all governmental liability in order ton protect the taxpayers’ pocketbook. Sovereign immunity already seems plenty robust to me. But perhaps I misunderstand the thrust of your comment.