discussion post on litigation against law enforcement officials

No Plagiarism. At least 1 page. References must be used and sited. APA format.

Litigation Against Law Enforcement Officials

Competencies Addressed in This Discussion

  • Competency 1: Articulate how the rules of criminal procedure apply to a criminal justice practitioner.
  • Competency 2: Illustrate ethical compliance with criminal procedure from a criminal justice practitioner perspective.

Introduction

Civil liability may occur under tort law in several circumstances. For instance, a police officer will be found liable when what happened can be blamed solely on the officer and on nobody else and transcends negligence. Additionally, a supervisor can be held liable when the supervisor is involved in the act or when what happened can be linked to one or all of the seven areas of supervisor negligence. Finally, a city or county is considered liable when what happened was the result of policy or custom.

Recent cases have addressed the issue of liability regarding both police officers’ individual liability as well as the potential civil liability of government entities. Two such cases are Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) and Brosseau v. Haugen (2004).

Instructions

For this discussion, review Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Brosseau v. Haugen, considering that both of these cases could be said to favor law enforcement.

In your main post:

  • Explain potential sources of tort liability and whether they would be individual and/or departmental.
  • Articulate adjustments at the officer and departmental levels to avoid civil liability.
  • Describe the overall impact of the sources of tort liability on the field of criminal justice.

Discussion Objectives

The competencies addressed in this discussion are supported by discussion objectives, as follows:

  • Competency 1: Articulate how the rules of criminal procedure apply to a criminal justice practitioner.
    • Explain potential individual and departmental sources of tort liability.
  • Competency 2: Illustrate ethical compliance with criminal procedure from a criminal justice practitioner perspective.
    • Articulate officer- and departmental-level adjustments needed to avoid civil liability.
    • Describe how sources of tort liability impact the field of criminal justice.
    • Due Date: Weekly.

      Criminal Justice Program Discussion Participation Grading Rubric
      Criteria Non-performance Basic Proficient Distinguished
      Main Discussion Post Response (60%)
      Apply critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.
      50%
      Does not apply elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post. Applies some elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post. Applies critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post. Applies critical thinking or problem solving to the main discussion post in a comprehensive, step-by-step manner.
      Use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.
      10%
      Does not use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion. Responds to the discussion, but some or all of the resources used for support are not credible. Uses credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion. Uses well- developed, relevant support from credible resources or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion and impartially considers conflicting data or other perspectives.
      Follow-up Post Response One (15%)
      Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.
      15%
      Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post. Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view. Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post.
      Follow-up Response Two (15%)
      Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.
      15%
      Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post or the first response. Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view. Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post.
      All Posts (10%)
      Communicate in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.
      10%
      Communicates in a manner that is inconsistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals. Communicates in a manner that is not fully consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals. Communicates in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals. Communicates in a clear, comprehensive, and professional manner aligned with with expectations for criminal justice professionals.