THE CASE OF MICHAEL BROWN

Good Faith Defenses

A municipality may not escape liability by claiming its officers or employees acted in good faith- Owen v. City of Independence

Liability for Inadequate Training

Sovereign Immunity

Legal doctrine by which the sovereign or states cannot commit

legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.

Cities are not immune.

Inadequate training could give rise to liability if:

"In light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policy-makers can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need"- City of Canton v. Harris

Federal Civil Right Suits

The Requirement of a Custom, Policy, or Practice

"REASONABLENESS" FACTORS

a city, county, or similar governmental agency is only liable for the deprivation of federal rights caused by its own policy, custom or practice

Establishing a "custom, policy, or practice" in the absence of Written Guidelines or Repeated Acts

To establish a custom or practice in the absence of a formal policy will usually require proof of repeated incidents suggesting a pattern or practice.

The problem is with not the “policy” of the agency, but that agency employees are ignorant of the policy.

Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services

establishes the principle that the government entity is liable only for acts of its employee or agent that stem from a “custom, policy or practice” of the entity, and not from an individual aberration or isolated act, even one committed “under color of law.”

a plaintiff must show that action taken pursuant to official municipal policy caused the injury

Graham v. Connor (1989) added the "split-second rule" along with factors to consider in a balancing test of reasonableness

REASONABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

DEFINITION OF A SEIZURE

• The specific acts the officer prevented the individual from engaging in must be legally protected otherwise there is no civil rights violation.
• In order to win a civil rights claim, an individual bringing a police misconduct claim must prove
• (1) that the actions of the police exceeded reasonable bounds
• (2) infringed the victim's constitutional rights, and
• (3) produced some injury or damages to the victim.

NOTE: Facts are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

When is deadly force reasonable?

• “Objective reasonableness” test per Tennessee v. Garner

• Tennessee law allowed cops to “use all the necessary means to effect [an] arrest”

• Memphis officer shot and killed 15-year-old Edward Garner (had stolen a purse and 10 bucks)

What is a seizure?

• Restriction of freedom to walk away

• A DEAD PERSON NORMALLY CANNOT WALK AWAY

• The use of deadly force is a seizure

Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

The severity of the crime

Garner Holding

• Tennessee statute held unconstitutional

• Deadly force may only be used if necessary to prevent escape and suspect poses “a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others”

• Balancing test between nature of intrusion and individual's Fourth Amendment interests vs. governmental interests

“The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched. The suspect's fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon. The use of deadly force also frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

• DEAD PEOPLE NORMALLY CANNOT TESTIFY.

Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others

Graham v. Connor

In light of Graham, the court is required to balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interest, against the countervailing governmental interest at stake.

The court can consider the following factors:

- Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat

- Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest

- The severity of the crime

The court cannot use the benefit of hindsight in making its determination of whether the officer's action were reasonable.

This gives police wide latitude to use deadly force.

Possible Lawsuit?

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to protect citizens from governmental abuses, an umbrella under which police brutality falls.

Permissible standards of force depend solely on the custodial status of the individual.

In our case, Mike Brown was a free citizen. Brown’s protections are afforded to him by the Fourth Amendment.

THE FACTS OF MICHAEL BROWN

Police Immunity

Facts:

(1) that the actions of the police

exceeded reasonable bounds

- Shooting an unarmed surrendered citizen

(2) infringed the victim's constitutional rights, and

- Due Process: deprivation of life

(3) produced some injury or damages to the victim.

- Killed him.

Conclusion

Qualified Immunity

Balancing Interest Test

• Arising in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983
• Shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights
• Police defense
• Exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from inhibiting a police officer from enforcing the law.
• Created to replace the inquiry of defendant’s subjective state of mind with an inquiry into objective reasonableness of action

• Balances two important interest:
• The need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly
• The need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably
• If officer violates plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional right, then police officers don’t have immunity. (Harlow v. Fitzgerald)
• protects police officers who have not violated the plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional rights

MICHAEL BROWN

“OFFICER-FRIENDLY” MISSOURI LAW

Officer Darren Wilson relied on Missouri's Use of Deadly Force Statute.

• Legal experts consider the Missouri law more “officer-friendly” than most other states.

• University of Missouri criminal justice professor David Klinger says the law makes it hard to indict officers, often resulting in tragedies he describes as “awful but lawful.”

The only person alive who knows what truly happened that fateful August 9th is Darren Wilson. It is unlikely that he will ever construe the facts unfavorably against himself. Early eye witness accounts along with the Justice Department's scathing report on the racial biases and abuses of the Ferguson Police Department suggest that only a trial would have offered us a semblance of justice. Regardless of the outcome, we feel that there is no question 18-year-old Michael's death could easily have been prevented.

This tragedy, along with countless others, including the recent cold-blooded murder of an unarmed Walter Scott who in no way posed a threat of danger, leads us to believe that the idea of justice is merely a delusion.

Law Enforcement Use of Deadly Force and The Fourth Amendment

High school graduate Michael Brown was killed by Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014.

What are the standards under the Fourth Amendment concerning the use of force by police departments?

• Supreme Court created current legal standards for use of force by police

• Current protections grounded in the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ”

By:

Aisha Alcaraz

Alexandra Lavelanet

Alexa Perez

Martin Rosenow

THE CASE

OF

MICHAEL BROWN