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 –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.

Immunity State Tort Immunity –Willful and Wanton Misconduct –Conscious Disregard for the Safety of Others

Graham v. Connor (1989) page 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 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 Police Officers Use of Force is examined by the courts using a reasonableness standard necessitated because this is a seizure and therefore the 4 th 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 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 8 th Amendment Controls. “(C)ruel and unusual punishment (shall not be) inflicted.” Cruel and unusual indicates intentional behavior.

Police Officer in Liable Under Sec If their comrades commit brutality and they take no action to stop it.

Liability of Private Individuals Based on Section 1983 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 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 … 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 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 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 1 st Amendment Rights –Limited rights after Garcetti v. Ceballos 4 th Amendment Rights –Limited in employment case 5 th Amendment Rights –Garrity