Federal criminal civil remedies for unconstitutional conduct
Download
1 / 15

Federal Criminal Civil Remedies for Unconstitutional Conduct - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 131 Views
  • Uploaded on

Federal Criminal & Civil Remedies for Unconstitutional Conduct. Title 42 USC Section 1982 Under Color of State Law. Immunity. Absolute Immunity Judges Legislators Prosecutors Statements made within the context of a judicial hearing. Immunity. Qualified Immunity

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Federal Criminal Civil Remedies for Unconstitutional Conduct' - kynton


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Federal criminal civil remedies for unconstitutional conduct
Federal Criminal & Civil Remedies for Unconstitutional Conduct

  • Title 42 USC Section 1982

    • Under Color of State Law


Immunity
Immunity Conduct

  • Absolute Immunity

    • Judges

    • Legislators

    • Prosecutors

    • Statements made within the context of a judicial hearing


Immunity1
Immunity Conduct

  • Qualified Immunity

    • Violation was not clearly established at time of the act

    • A reasonable public official confronted with these facts could have believed that his of her conduct conformed to the relevant standard.


Immunity2
Immunity Conduct

  • State Tort Immunity

    • Willful and Wanton Misconduct

    • Conscious Disregard for the Safety of Others


Graham v connor 1989 page 718
Graham v. Connor (1989) Conductpage 718

  • Questions to be answered

    • What is the improper police conduct?

    • What other case that we have discussed is used as the foundation for this case?

    • What is the proper Amendment to consider when addressing the improper police misconduct in this case?

    • What is the standard to be applied in this case? As opposed to what other standard?

    • Issue? Be careful, the true issue is not in the regular spot.

    • Holding?


Factors in determining reasonableness in police use of force cases
Factors in Determining Reasonableness Conductin Police Use of Force Cases

  • Severity of crime

  • Suspect poses an immediate threat

  • Resisting arrest or attempting to flee


Mental state for excessive use of force for different b of rs applications
Mental State for Excessive Use of Force for Different B of Rs Applications

  • Police Officers Use of Force is examined by the courts using a reasonableness standard necessitated because this is a seizure and therefore the 4th Amendment Controls. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons … against unreasonable … seizures, shall not be violated…”


Mental state for excessive use of force for different b of rs applications1
Mental State for Excessive Use of Force for Different B of Rs Applications

  • Correctional Officers’ Use of Force is examined by the courts using a willful and wanton standard necessitated because excessive force after conviction is punishment and therefore the 8th Amendment Controls. “(C)ruel and unusual punishment (shall not be) inflicted.”

  • Cruel and unusual indicates intentional behavior.


Police officer in liable under sec 1983
Police Officer in Liable Under Sec. 1983 Rs Applications

  • If their comrades commit brutality and they take no action to stop it.


Liability of private individuals based on section 1983
Liability of Private Individuals Based on Section 1983 Rs Applications

  • Act in concert with police.

  • Act under State compulsion or with significant State encouragement

  • Perform a public function (private corporation operating State prison.)


Criminal responsibility title 18 usc 242
Criminal Responsibility Rs ApplicationsTitle 18 USC 242

  • Act under color of law (not just State Law)

  • Possessed a willful intent (mental state)

  • Violated a constitutional right (that has been)

  • Previously made specific through judicial decision.

    LESS THAN 2% OF CASES ARE PROSECUTED


14 th amendment
14 Rs Applicationsth Amendment

  • … nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Protection afforded by the 14 th amendment
Protection Afforded by the 14 Rs Applicationsth Amendment

  • Substantive Due Process

    • Culpable Action DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services = No constitutional duty of the public official to protect the public from harm except:

      • Discriminatory Denial of Police Protection

        • Jeffrey Dahmer

      • Duty to Protect Persons in Custody – People are no longer capable of taking care of themselves

        • Kneipp v. City of Philadelphia


Equal protection of the law
Equal Protection of the Law Rs Applications

  • Deliberately treating one person differently from another because;

    • A person’s membership in a protected class

    • A desire to punish the person for exercising a constitutional right

    • Malicious intent to injure the person out of spite.


Law enforcement professional s constitutional rights in the workplace
Law Enforcement Professional’s Constitutional Rights in the Workplace

  • 1st Amendment Rights

    • Limited rights after Garcetti v. Ceballos

  • 4th Amendment Rights

    • Limited in employment case

  • 5th Amendment Rights

    • Garrity


ad