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