Chapter 11Civil and Criminal Remedies for Constitutional Violations

Introduction civil remedies criminal remedies administrative remedies dual sovereignty

Civil Remedies tort compensatory vs. punitive damages Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code Bivens suit

Section 1983 Legal Actions taken against local and state law enforcement

officials Monroe v. Pape: individuals can sue state

officials for damages in federal or in state court

three elements that a plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence

color of law violation of constitutional rights immunity

Color of State Law

the defendant exercise power that he or she “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law”

totality of the circumstance whether the individual’s acts were undertaken in

furtherance of his/her responsibilities as a police officer or were undertaken as a private citizen

Violation of Federal Constitutional and Statutory Rights

defendant violated a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or federal law

violation of a right guaranteed by a state constitution but not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution may not be the subject of a legal suit under § 1983

Individual Liability under § 1983

liability may be imposed on a police officer who is directly responsible for

violating an individual’s constitutional rights his/her commanding officer in some cases, city officials

an “affirmative link” between the actions or orders of the supervisors and the allegations of police misconduct must be proved to hold supervisors liable

Immunity absolute and qualified Harlow v. Fitzgerald

§ 1983 suits are intended to compensate individuals who have been harmed by a violation of their federal constitutional rights and rights under federal statutes

§ 1983 suits impose a burden on government officials, some of whom may prove to be completely innocent

Absolute Immunity enjoyed by judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and

jurors during a trial, individuals are asked to make

difficult choices and should not be in fear of being sued

Qualified Immunity offered to police officers, prison officials, correctional

officers, probation officers, and other criminal justice practitioners

liable under § 1983 for the violation of a “clearly established right”

whether an objectively reasonable officer would be aware that his or her conduct is unlawful

police and other criminal justice professionals work under enormous pressures and that the line between unlawful and lawful conduct often is unclear

three steps whether the individual/officer violated the plaintiff’s

constitutional right whether the right was clearly established whether the right violated was a clearly established

constitutional or federal right

Legal Equation

Immunity of Judges and Prosecutors officials still may be criminally prosecuted for penal

offenses such as corruption, bribery, or conspiracy to deprive an individual of his or her civil rights

Mireles v. Waco: “[a]lthough unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, it is a general principle of the highest importance of the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his convictions without apprehension of personal consequences to himself”

Forrester v. White: judges can be held liable under § 1983 when carrying out administrative, not judicial, tasks

Imbler v. Pachtman: rationale for prosecutorial immunity is similar to that for judicial immunity

Affirmative Duty to Protect

question of whether the police, correctional officers, or other government officials are civilly liable for failing to protect an individual or the public from a criminal act

police and other government officials have no legal obligation to intervene to protect the general public

police do have a duty to protect those over whom they have control (e.g. prisoners) and those with whom they have a “special relationship”

“state-created danger” exception

Liability of LocalGovernments Under § 1983 state governments and agencies cannot be sued under §

1983 Eleventh Amendment liable when police officials or other employees inflict an

injury while carrying out an official governmental “policy” or custom

liability causality factors

accountability resources local budgets

Injunctions a court order that directs an individual or

government to stop an unlawful activity a violation of an injunction is punishable by

contempt typically have been issued only where there is

evidence that police officials have resisted demands to change discriminatory or harmful police department policies that present a clear and immediate threat of harm

Pattern and Practice of the Deprivation of Constitutional Rights

Federal Police Misconduct Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 14141: it is unlawful for law enforcement officers or law enforcement agencies to “engage in a pattern or practice of conduct” that deprives individuals of a constitutional right or right guaranteed by the laws of the United States

pattern-or-practice decree

State Tort Remedies Against Law Enforcement Officers

tort actions against law enforcement officers are difficult to win because they possess the defense of official immunity

proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the tort was committed in a “willful or malicious fashion”

respondeat superior

Remedies for Constitutional Violations by Federal Agents Bivens v. Six Unnamed FBI Agents: federal law

enforcement officers are responsible for constitutional torts that violate individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights

the requirements for a Bivens suit are essentially the same as the requirements for a § 1983 suit

federal judges and prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity

federal law enforcement and correctional officers, the heads of federal agencies, and presidential aides are provided qualified immunity for violating constitutional rights that are not clearly established

elements of a Bivens action: similar to that of a § 1983

Federal Tort Claim Act, 28 U.S. C. § 1346(b)

Legal Equation

Criminal Prosecutions prosecutors often encourage an individual to

seek a civil remedy rather than look to the government to initiate a criminal prosecution against a police officer

state criminal codes also often include specific provisions punishing official misconduct and obstruction of justice by government employees

Graham v. Connor federal criminal prosecution

18 U.S.C. § 242 Screws v. United States

Internal Affairs internal affairs division four possible results of an internal affairs

investigation unfounded exonerated not sustained sustained

External Review civilian review concern of outsiders second-guessing

police actions authorities

civilian review civilian investigation civilian oversight civilian mediation