Chapter 21-Legal Liabilities

Question 1

police are an attractive target because they

Answer 1

wield power and are public employees

Question 2

police may be liable under state law and under federal law. Two types of liabilities may be subclassified into three general categories

Answer 2

1. civil liabilities
2. criminal liabilities
3. administrative liabilities

Question 3

Plaintiffs usually prefer the

Answer 3

civil liabilities route for a number of reasons. Civil cases are easier to win, they result in a monetary award and do not need the intervention of the prosecutors office to file case

Question 4

Supreme court on police civil liability decisons

Answer 4

1. Police Officers enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability when testifying,even if testimony is perjured.
2. inadequate police training can lead to liability under federal law, but only if it amounts to deliberate indifference
3. neither state nor state officials acting in their official capacity may be sued under federal law in state court
4. state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations
5. municipality may be held liable for a sheriffs single negligent decision to hire an officer, but only if the hiring constitutes deliberate indifference, interpreted to mean that what happened was the plainly obvious consequence of the decision to hire the officer.

Question 5

Municipality may be held liable in a 1983 lawsuit and cannot claim the good faith defense

Answer 5

Owen v City of Independence, 1980
city manager dismissed the chief of police without reason . Chief filed Title 42 USC 1983 lawsuit against city manager, membersof coucil alleging that he was discharged without notice of reasons and without a hearing, thereby, violating his constitutional right to procedural and substantive due process.

Question 6

Owen case makes clear that municipality may be liable if a persons constitutional right has been violated,(in this case the right to due process prior to dismissal).

Answer 6

Because they were acting in accordance with provisions of city charter, the city manager and members of city council enjoyed a “good faith “ defense but the city did not.

Question 7

Court held that individual blameworthiness is no longer the acid test of liability, substituting in its place

Answer 7

the principle of “equitable loss-spreading” in addition to fault, as a fact in distributing the costs of official misconduct

Question 8

In a Sectio 1983 civil action, police officers are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability when testifying , even if testimony is perjured.

Answer 8

Briscoe v LaHue, 1983
Briscoe convicted in state court of burglary. He filed a Title 42 USC 1983 suit in the District Court alleging that LaHue, police officer, violated his right to due process by committing perjury.
officers enjoy absolute immunity from civil liab when testifying, even if its perjured.

Question 9

in all other aspects of police work, an officer enjoys only qualified immunity (good faith)

Answer 9

Briscoe

Question 10

In a Sect 1983 civil action, officers are entitled only to qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, when acting in an objectively reasonable manner in obtaining a search warrant that is ultimately found defective

Answer 10

Malley v Briggs, 1986
on basis of two monitored telephone calls pursuant to a court authorized wiretap, Rhode Island state trooper Malley prepared felony complaints charging Briggs and others with possession of marij.

Question 11

In Malley case, if malice and lack of probable cause are proved, the officer enjoys no immunity at all. The officer is not liable anyway if he acted in an

Answer 11

objectively reasonable manner

Question 12

inadequate police training may serve as the basis for municipal liability under Title 42 1983, but only if it amounts to “deliberate indifference”,

Answer 12

City of Canton v Harris, 1989
Harris arrested and taken to police station in a patrol wagon. at station, Harris was found sitting on floor. when asked if she needed medical help, her reply was incoherent. Officers did not offer medical assistance. when released, family took her to hospital. City can be held liable.

Question 13

Municipality can be held liable for failure to train. Court said yes, but subject to strict requirements.

Answer 13

1. failure to adequentely train reflects a “deliberate” or “conscious” choice by the municipality
2. inadequate training represents city policy
3. identified deficiency in the training program must be closely related to the ultimate injury

Question 14

neither the state nor state officials, acting in their official capacity may be sued under 1983 in state court

Answer 14

Will v Michigan Dept of State Police, 1989
Will filed1983 lawsuit alleging that he was denied a promotion , violating his consitutional rights, because his brother had been a student activist and subject of a “red squad” file maintained by the dept.

Question 15

11th Amend bars such suits unless the State has waived its immunity.

Answer 15

Will case

Question 16

Will case sys state officials cannot be sued under 1983 in their official capacity because the 11th Amend exempts states from liability in such lawsuits, unless the liability is waived by the state. This decision extends state immunity to state public officials when sued in their official capacity.
following points need to be emphasized

Answer 16

1. officials can be sued in their personal capacity
2. State officials can be sued in their official or personal capacity in a state tort case because Will case only applies to 1983 cases.
3. municipal and county officials, (law enforcement) can be sued in either their public or private capacity under 1983. This is because 11th Amend grants immunity to states, not local gov.
4. State officials have immunityin 1983 case in federal courts. Will case states that they now have immunity in state courts. However, many states have waived sovereign immunity and therefore expose state officials to possible liability.

Question 17

state officials sued in their individual capacity are liable for civil rights violations.

Answer 17

Hafer v Melo, 1991
Hafer was elected to post of Auditor General of Pennsylvania. Part of her campaign, she promised to fire 21 employees. after taking office, she fired 18 people, including Melo. Melo can be sued personally for damages under Title 42 USC 1983

Question 18

City’s failure to warn or train its employees about known hazards in the workplace does not violate the due process clause of the 14th Amend.

Answer 18

Collins v City of Harker Heights,1992

Collins, a sanitation worker, died of asphyxia after entering a manhole to unstop a sewer line.

Question 19

one of the elements of a 1983 case is that there must have been a violation of a constitutional or federally protected right (other being that the offending person must have been acting under color of law).

Answer 19

Collins v City of Harker Heights

Question 20

In Collins, Court said, such failure to warn or train about workplace hazards could still be the basis for a lawsuit as violative of due process rights, but only if

Answer 20

such omission is “arbitrary or conscience-shocking”

Question 21

A county cannot be held liable under 1983 for a single hiring decision made by a county official.

Answer 21

Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County, Oklahoma v Brown, 1997
Brown and husband turn around after approaching a police checkpoint. Deputies pursued the vehicle for 4 miles at speeds of 100 miles per hour. When Browns stopped, Morrison pointed gun ordering occupants out,. When Brown did not respond , officer pulled brown from truck and swung her to ground causing severe injuries to Browns knees.

Question 22

Municipalities and municipal officials can be assured, then, that as long as a hiring decision does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference that can be traced directly to the officers future actions involving a constitutional violation, the municipality is free from liability.

Answer 22

Brown case

Question 23

whether a sheriff is an agent of the county or of the state is determined by the states constitution, laws or other regulations. In this case, Alabama law indicates that sheriffs are agents of the state and not of the county.

Answer 23

McMillian v Monroe County, Alabama,1997
McMillian was convicted of murder and sentenced to death based on cop-conspirator. His conviction was overturned after a ruling that those involved in the investigation had suppressed statements form co-conspirator that contradicted his trial testimoney and other evidence.

Question 24

Supreme Court said in this case that a sheriff may be an agent of the county in some states and an agent of the state in other states; issue being determined by the state itself.

Answer 24

McMillian cae

Question 25

in high-speed vehicle pursuit cases, liability in 1983 cases ensues only if the conduct of the officer “shocks the conscience”. The lower standard of “deliberate indifference” does not apply.

Answer 25

Couny of Sacramento v Lewis, 1998
Lewis a passenger of motorcycle evading police at high speeds. chase lasted 75 seconds at speeds of excess 100 mph. m/c overturned and lewis was thrown from motorcycle and officer was unable to stop before hitting lewis, knocking him 70 feet down road. Lewis was dead at scene. Officer does not violate 14th Amend guarentee of substantive due process by causing death thur deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a highspeed auto chase.

Question 26

Court in Lewis held: only “conduct that shocks the conscious” leads to liability under 1983 in high speed pursuit cases. Only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation

Answer 26

Lewis case

Question 27

Plaintiffs must prove

Answer 27

that the officer acted with “a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest

Question 28

ruling on qualified immunity is not intertwined with a ruling on violation of a constitutional right and should be made early in the proceedings so that, if established, the cost and expense of trial are avoided.

Answer 28

Saucier v Katz, 2001
at military base, vice president was to speak. katz planned to protest the speech and brought a 4x3 sign. two military police officers who had already been warned about Katz, intercepted him and rushed him out of the area. katz taken to police station and then released. Katz claimed excessive force.

Question 29

qualified immunity is established by the officer early, then the case should be dismissed and trial avoided. once established, immunized the officer from trial and civil liability under Sec 1983

Answer 29

Katz

Question 30

wrongful failure by police to arrest a husband who violated a restraining order does not amount to a violation of a constitutional due process right under the 14th Amend and therefore does not result in civil liability under federal law.

Answer 30

Town of Castle Rock v Gonzales, 2005
Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband pending a divorce. 3 weeks after order was issued, husband took his daughters from the front yard of their house without Gonzales awareness or permission. police notified and advised that there is nothing they could do. Gonzales again called the police asking to have officer check for her husband truck at amusement park, again police advised for Gonzales to wait. Later in morning, husband arrived at police station and fired shots. during exchange, husband was killed. police found husbands truck the bodies of his three daughters who he had killed.

Question 31

Court decision in Gonzales

Answer 31

A town cannot be held civilly liable under federal law for wrongfully and intentionally having a custom or policy that tolerates non-enforcement of court restraining orders. Such practice does not amount to a violation of due process rights and therefore do not result in civil liability.

Question 32

Court ruled that, to have a claim under the due process clause, a person must have a true property interest, not simply “an abstract need or desire” and the person must have “more than unilateral expectation of it. …Due process clause does not protect everything that might be described as a benefit.

Answer 32

Gonzaless case