Ch. 11 Other Remedies for Constitutional Violations (Q2)

Question 1

What are the 3 actions that can be taken against officers?

Answer 1

1) Criminal law
2) Civil law
3) Internal departmental review

Question 2

What is the difference between the criminal law, civil law, and internal departmental review remedies?

Answer 2

1) Criminal - prosecute officer
2) Civil - Sue officer, department, government, etc.
3) Internal review - discipline officer outside judicial system

Question 3

What is the main reason that it is so hard to prove police officers guilty of police misconduct?

Answer 3

It’s hard to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt when officers honestly believe their actions are lawful

Question 4

What do most plaintiffs who sue officers and governments want in return for injuries caused by police misconduct?

Answer 4

Compensation (monetary)

Question 5

Where can civil action take place?

Answer 5

In state or federal courts

Question 6

Lawsuits against individual federal LEOs.

Answer 6

What are constitutional tort actions?

Question 7

Another name for constitutional tort actions.

Answer 7

What are Bivens actions?

Question 8

Lawsuits against the federal government for their officers’ constitutional torts.

Answer 8

What are Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) actions?

Question 9

Bivens v. Six Unnamed FBI Agents (1971) established that people have the private right to sue individual federal officers for constitutional rights violations. What 2 elements must the plaintiff prove?

Answer 9

1) Officer acted with apparent legal authority
2) Officer’s actions deprived plaintiff of constitutional rights

Question 10

What test must individual officer actions meet for officers not to be held personally liable according to the defense of qualified immunity?

Answer 10

Shield of immunity test

Question 11

Who does the shield of immunity not protect?

Answer 11

The plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law

Question 12

The shield of immunity is an { } test.

Answer 12

Objective

Question 13

What are the 2 elements from Saucier v. Katz (2001) that a government official must meet to be entitled to qualified immunity (i.e., what must the court look at)?

Answer 13

1) Whether facts indicate a constitutional right violation
2) Whether that right was clearly established at the time of alleged conduct

Question 14

This doctrine states that individuals can’t sue governments w/o the government’s consent.

Answer 14

What is the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity?

Question 15

If the plaintiff pursues Federal Tort Claims Act actions against the U.S. government, then sovereign immunity is…

Answer 15

Waived

Question 16

The exclusive money damages remedy for negligent acts or omissions of federal government employees acting within the scope of employment.

Answer 16

What is FTCA?

Question 17

This defense states that officers are only liable for “willful or deliberate wrong” in state tort actions.

Answer 17

What is the Defense of Official Immunity?

Question 18

This piece of legislation states that all LEOs who deprive citizens or persons within their jurisdiction of rights are liable to legal action.

Answer 18

What is Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871?

Question 19

Can you bring up legal action against judicial officers according to Section 1983?

Answer 19

No

Question 20

Section 1983 action elements are the same as { } elements.

Answer 20

Bivens

Question 21

Is liability to legal action available for the negligent or accidental acts committed by officers in Title 42, Section 1983?

Answer 21

No, only deliberate acts

Question 22

This doctrine states that state and local governments and their agencies are liable for the torts of their employees.

Answer 22

What is the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior?

Question 23

How far does liability extend under the doctrine of respondeat superior?

Answer 23

Only to torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment

Question 24

States without the doctrine of respondeat superior use…

Answer 24

The defense of vicarious official immunity

Question 25

This rule states that law enforcement has no constitutional duty to protect individuals from each other.

Answer 25

What is the no-affirmative-duty-to-protect rule?

Question 26

This exception to the “no affirmative duty to protect” rule holds that people in custody have a constitutional right to protection.

Answer 26

What is the special-relationship exception?

Question 27

What is the “special relationship” in question regarding the special-relationship exception (i.e., what is the special condition for this exception to apply)?

Answer 27

This applies to people in state custody

Question 28

This 1989 case was the first duty-to-protect case emphasizing that social services did not have a constitutional duty to intervene in harm caused by private actors (NOT caused by the state).

Answer 28

What is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services?

Question 29

This exception to the “no duty to protect” rule applies when the state contributes to creating a danger that the victim faces or making the victim more vulnerable to that danger.

Answer 29

What is the state-created danger exception?

Question 30

What 3 elements do courts demand in order to impose civil liability on government officers according to the state-created danger exception?

Answer 30

1) Violence (state-sanctioned)
2) Affirmative action (LEO played active role in creating danger)
3) State of mind (deliberate indifference)

Question 31

This 2004 case held that a 911 dispatcher’s negligence toward private violence does not amount to deliberate indifference; thus, there is no constitutional duty to intervene.

Answer 31

What is Beltran v. City of El Paso?

Question 32

Which officials have absolute immunity from civil suits?

Answer 32

Judges

Question 33

Are judges liable to civil suits even if they act maliciously and in bad faith?

Answer 33

No

Question 34

This type of immunity depends on the function of the officer at the time of the act.

Answer 34

What is functional immunity?

Question 35

Which officials have functional immunity?

Answer 35

Prosecutors

Question 36

Why do prosecutors have functional immunity?

Answer 36

Because they have absolute liability as advocates for the state in criminal prosecutions but have limited liability as administrators/investigators

Question 37

What are the 2 types of administrative review?

Answer 37

Internal and external

Question 38

What are the 4 stages of internal review (HINT: IIDD)?

Answer 38

1) Intake
2) Investigation
3) Deliberation
4) Disposition

Question 39

What are the 4 dispositions of internal review?

Answer 39

1) Unfounded
2) Exonerated
3) Not sustained
4) Sustained

Question 40

What is the difference between internal and external review in terms of who is conducting/leading the review?

Answer 40

Internal - conducted by special officers/administrators in the department

External - citizens participate in various roles of review