Monroe vs. Pape Argued: November 8, Decided: February 20, 1961 Kelly Sass

Background It involved The case arose when there was a complaint that police officers of the City of Chicago broke into the Monroes' home one night which the officers then ransacked while making the couple stand naked in the living room. It originated in the City of Chicago. The City of Chicago moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it could not be held not liable under the Civil Rights Acts or for acts committed in performance of its governmental functions. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against the city, finding that Congress had not intended the word "person" in section 1983 to apply to municipalities.

Constitutional Issues The officers did not have a search warrant or an arrest warrant and not being allowed to make a phone call or talk to a lawyer. The constitution says that every person has the right to privacy. This violates a person’s fourth and fourteenth amendment rights. The question is why was this man’s rights taken from him?

Court Ruling Chicago City court moved to dismiss the case because the cops could not be held liable under the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against the city, finding that Congress had not intended the word "person" in section 1983 to apply to municipalities. Monroe was later overruled in Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) to the extent that local governments could be liable in federal court for violating individuals' constitutional rights.

When Monroe sued the police officers for violating his civil rights, The City of Chicago said that their policemen could not be held liable under the Civil Rights Act. Congress intended to give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges and immunities by an official's abuse of his position. They had to give equal right to the citizens under the fourteenth amendment. The policemen had no authority to go into Monroe’s house without a warrant.

Ramifications According to the Fourteenth Amendment the court had to rule in favor of Monroe. This case violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because the police gave a illegal search and seizure and violated the civil rights of Monroe and his family. Some negative effects of the case could be that the police got “power” taken away from them. In the sense that people have a lot of rights that the police need to uphold, even if evidence points to them or not.

Cases Related Warden v. Hayden 387 u.s. 294 (1967)Warden v. Hayden 387 u.s. 294 (1967) The Court of Appeals found the search lawful, but reversed on the ground that the clothing seized during the search was immune from seizure, being of "evidential value only.” Terry v. Ohio 392 u.s. 1 (1968)Terry v. Ohio 392 u.s. 1 (1968) Petitioner and Chilton were found guilty Chambers v. Maroney 399 u.s. 42 (1970)Chambers v. Maroney 399 u.s. 42 (1970) error in the admission of the bullets and ruling that the materials seized from the car were admissible in evidence, and concluded that the claim of prejudice from substitution of counsel was without substantial basis.

Personal Response The Supreme Court was right in ruling in favor or Monroe because they had no right to accuse a man of a crime that he was not linked to. They police also had no right to make the family stand naked in the living room while 13 police ransack the house.