How can probation and parole officers minimize the chances of civil liability law suits while they are performing their duties and responsibilities?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Officers must know their job duties and the liability issues associated with going outside of those duties in a way that results in harm to another person that is caused by their actions or inactions. Given that it is impossible for officers to control the actions of their clients at all times, the best officers can do is to follow department policy, follow the orders of the court or the parole board, and justify their actions with accurate paperwork. Negligence is the failure to do that which a reasonably prudent person would have done in like or similar circumstances. For example, if an officer finds out through credible sources that one of her probationers is planning to commit a crime, and the officer could have prevented it but failed to do so, the officer is likely negligent. A person may be held liable (or responsible) if the negligence was gross or willful.
Absolute immunity protects government officials from any legal action unless they engage in actions that are intentionally and maliciously wrong. Absolute immunity provides the highest level of protection. Qualified immunity is much more narrow and limited to those in the executive branch or those times when workers are performing administrative functions. In qualified immunity, workers are not liable for wrongdoing when their actions are found to be "objectively reasonable" and within the scope of employment. This standard is also subjective. Given that most functions of probation and parole officers are administrative rather than quasi-judicial/adjudicatory, probation and parole officers have qualified immunity.