I’m wondering how such agreements can be considered valid - there is clearly a ship load of duress being applied by the government.
I'm with you. I think any reasonably competent attorney could show that duress. I'd bet they could turn it around and use the fact that the offer was even put on the table as evidence of the wrongfulness of the arrest. After all, if the arrest was "above board" and legal in the first place, why would the government/law enforcement agencies seek the (dubious) protection of the agreement? They must believe there is a case-for or evidence-of wrongful arrest if they are trying to preempt lawsuits with this BS agreement. If they thought the arrests were valid, they wouldn't make the offer, they'd say "go ahead, sue, you'll lose." Methinks there is a case to be made and the budget/insurers of those involved are going to take a *big* hit in the coming months.