Comments on: Update: Oregon admits error in traffic engineer case

By: captnhal

captnhal — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:53:25 +0000

In reply to Noncenx. Great idea! The problem is that it's very unlikely to occur and that's the real problem. The employee knowingly oversteps their authority or intent of the law (here a free speech violation) and the tax payer foots the bill on a civil suit. As SPO points out, no one is likely to lose their job.

By: Noncenx

Noncenx — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 23:11:39 +0000

In reply to gasman. I wouldn't have a problem with them being personally liable to a small claims court case. It would be enough to put a little sting in their pockets and not have taxpayers on the hook. It would provide any incentive for the gov bureaucrat to follow the law.

By: gasman

gasman — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:22:04 +0000

Perhaps it would be simpler if no one had to lose their job, but that agencies were subject to the simple liability rules that any business would potentially suffer with a visit to small claims court.

‘Your honor, they acted contrary to Oregon law (see ruling from state of Oregon), which as both citizens and state employees charged with knowing the law should have known, and cost me time/money. I wish compensation in the amount of $x,xxx.’

Your honor asks what I’m smoking? Well, that’s been legal in Oregon since 2015.

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:25:46 +0000

This is the problem with nonsense like this from bureaucrats. In the face of an obvious violation of the constitution, no one will lose their jobs.

By: great unknown

great unknown — Sun, 10 Dec 2017 00:03:12 +0000

The State admits to a clear §1983 violation. I don’t think $500 dollars is quite going to cover it.