harlow v. Fitzgerald 1982
Governement officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages as as long as their conduct doesnot violate clearly established stautory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person whould have known
groh v. Ramirez 2004
An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted
Brosseau v. Haugen 2004
Because the focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful reasonableness is judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct. If the law at theat time did not clearly establish that the officers conduct would violate the Constitution, the officer should not be subject to liability, or indeed, even the burdens of litigation
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales 2005
The wrongful failure by the police to arrest a husband who violated a domestic relations court restraining order did not amount to a violation of a constitutional right under the 14th amendment due process clause and therefore does not result in liability under section 1983
scott v. harris 2007
A police officers attempt to terminate a dangerous high speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the 4th amendment even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death
section 1983 case
a lawsuit filed under federal law that seeks damages from a police officer, supervisor and /or dept.
acting under color of law
officer using power possessed by virtue of law
under color of law
when the officer uses power possessed by virtue of law and made possible only because the officer is clothed with the authority of the state
qualified immunity defense
an office is not civilly liable unless he or she violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known
clearly established constitutional right
a right so established that a reasonable police officer would have known his or her act was unlawful
probable cause defense
a reasonable good faith belief in the legality of the action taken
tort
a civil wrong in which the action of one person causes injury to the person or property of another, in violation of a legal duty imposed by law
intentional tort
occurs when there is an intention on the part of the officer to bring some physical harm or mental coercion upon another person
false arrest
when the officer makes an illegal arrest
false imprisonment
when a person is placed in confinement without any valid reason
assault
the attempt or threat to inflict bodily harm on another person
battery
the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact
reasonable force
force that a prudent and cautious person would use if expsed to similar circumstances
punitive force
force that is meant to punish rather than control
deadly force
force that when used, would lead a reasonable officer objectively to concule that it poses a high risk of death or serious injury
wrongful death
when death occurs as a result of an oficers unlawful action or inaction
negligence tort
a tort that occurs when there is a breach of a common law or stautory duty to act reasonably toward those who may foreseeably be harmed by ones conduct
public duty doctrine
government fuctions are owed to the general public but not to specific indiviuduals, thus there is generally no liablility for failing to protect a member of the public
special relationship
if a duty is owed to a particular person rather than to the general public, then a police officer or agency that breeches that duty can be held liable
official immunity
a defense in state tort cases if an act is discretionary done in good faith, and the officer was acting within the scope of authority
discretionary act
an act that involves personal deliberation, decision, and judgment
good faith
when an officer acts in the honest belief that the action taken or the decision was appropriate under the circumstances
acting within the scope of authority
when the officer is discharging the duties generally assigned
idemnification
compensation for incurred hurt, loss or damage
deliberate indifference
no fixed definition, generally a higher form of negligence than "mere indifference" but lower than conduct that shocks the conscience
deep pockets theory
officers generally have limited financial resources but he city, county, or municipality has deeper pockets of funds
municipal policy
a statement, ordinance, regulation or decision that is officially adopted and promulgated by governmental authorities
municipal custom
a persistent widespread practice that is so common or well settled as to constitute municipal policy
section 1983
a section 1983 case is a case usually filed in federal court in which the plaintiff seeks monetary damages and/or an injunction form a government official, hwo while acting whitin the scope of authority, violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights or a right given by federal law
what are the 2 requirements for a section 1983 lawsuit to succedd?
1) the defendant must have been acting under color of law and 2) ther emust have been a violation of a constitutional right or a right given by federal law
qualified immunity defense. An officer is not civillay liable unless?
he or she violated a clearly established stautory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known
when does section 1983 not apply?
if the right violated was given by state law or agency police, not by federal law
tort is a civil wrong in which the action?
of one person causes injury to the person or property of another in violation of a legal duty imposed by law
types of state tort cases
1) intentional tort and 2) negligence tort
intentional tort occurs when there is an intention ?
on the part of the officer to bring some physical harm to or mental coercion upon another person
negligence tort occurs when there is a breach of?
a common law or stautory duty to act reasonably toward those who may foreseeably be harmed by ones' conduct
when does negligence tort not apply?
there is no liablility under negligence tort for failing to protect a member of the public because the officer is protected by the public duty doctrine.
public duty doctrine means that government functions are owed to?
the general public but not to specific indidviduals. special realationship is an important exception to the public duty doctrine. it means there may be liability in negligence cases if a duty is owed to a particular person rather than to the general public
defense often used in state tortcases
official immunity means that the officer is not liable if performing a discretionary duty in good faith and is acting within the scope of authority, is the most common defense in state tort cases
when defendants are liable
1) a police officer is liable when what happened can be blamed solely on the officer and non nobody else 2) a supervisor is liable when the supervisor is involved in the act or when what happened can be linked ot one or all of the seven areas of supervisor negligence 3) a city or county is liable when what happened was the result of policy or custom
there are other possible consequences of police misconduct, including the following
1)prosection under federal and state laws 2) administratiave investigations and punishment 3) exclusion of evidence illegally seized (the exclusionary rule) 4) loss of law enforcement license