The court upheld an
"The opinion of the
The group intended to reduce police misconduct by placing the financial burden on officers. But Segal said that would conflict with the state law requiring cities to defend and indemnify employees acting within their job duties. A majority of
"Given that the proposed insurance amendment would expressly prohibit what [state law] permits the City to do -- procure additional insurance coverage, even for conduct for which the City would not otherwise be liable -- we cannot conclude that the proposed insurance amendment is 'in harmony with' state law," the court said in its majority opinion.
"It's an issue for the voters," he said, "and that's where it should have gone."
(c)2017 the Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
Visit the Star Tribune (Minneapolis) at www.startribune.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.