Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

PLUMHOFF v RICKARD

Robert Prenn, Darby Chastain, Zachary McMahon, A'Shonda Johnson

Facts:

  • West Memphis, Arkansas police officer attempted to pull over Rickard for a busted headlight.
  • Police officer noticed more damage to the car, asked Rickard to step out after refusing to show driver's license and acting nervous
  • Rickard started an auto pursuit, police officer asked for back-up.
  • Went across state lines into Memphis, Tennessee- pursuit was still happening

Issue:

  • Whether or not the officers violated Rickard's 4th amendment rights by:
  • Trying to terminate the chase
  • Shooting 15 rounds into the car

Rule

Police were first denied qualified immunity but the Supreme Court reversed the ruling saying the officers did have qualified immunity

Facts:

Holding:

Qualified Immunity:

The police officers involved in the chase did not violate the driver's 4th Amendment rights due to public safety.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages, usually money, as long as the official did not violate an individual’s constitutional or “clearly established” rights.

  • Trapped Rickard in a parking lot, attempted to get away- hitting police cars and nearly hitting a officer.
  • Officers shot 15 rounds into the car
  • A mixture of wounds from fleeing from the police and the rounds ended up killing Rickard and his passenger Allen.
  • Both families sued the police officers, the chief of police, and the mayor of West Memphis
  • Claimed violated 4th and 14th Amendment rights due to unreasonable force.

Arguements:

Courts Opinion:

  • Reversed the first court ruling, saying that the officers did not violate the 4th amendment due to excessive force

Citations:

Whitne Rickard (daughter):

  • Claims that the police used excessive force to stop her father, which then killed him

Plumhoff:

  • Claimed that he was under qualified immunity because he was covered under the law
  • https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-1117

  • http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1117_1bn5.pdf

  • http://nahmodlaw.com/2014/05/28/plumhoff-v-rickard-new-supreme-court-section-1983-fourth-amendmentqualified-immunity-decision/

Our Opinion:

  • Wasn't very clear how the chase violated the 4th amendment
  • The chase was lawful because of the threat of public safety
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi