An Issue of Two Courts

0 Comment

Given the fact that the charges that are to be leveled against the officer and the agency in particular have low chances of standing as criminal charges with intent to murder, in all probabilities, it would be certain that the charges could be changed to civil penalties. Greene (2006) states that there are three types of general torts that could be brought up against the police officer and the agency. These would include
Tort is a private injury inflicted on one person by another, where the plaintiff is the injured party. Negligence is alleged when a defendant should have anticipated their acts or omissions would result in an injury. The key factors in these cases are that of reasonableness.
The US Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to access to the court’s assures that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning violations of fundamental constitutional rights. US courts have fundamentally presumed that damage actions against the federal government- although not injunctive relief- must be authorized by the US Congress through an explicit waiver of immunity enjoyed by them. Shelton, (2001) states that at present, the Federal Tort Claims Act makes the state and state agencies liable for money damagesfor injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by federal government agents. For example both the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680 (1988 and Supp. IV 1992) and the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a).
It must also be remembered that individual agents are no longer immune from liability in USA where a wrongful act in violation of the constitution by a federal agent acting under color of law gives rise to a cause of action for damages against agents, according to the US Supreme Court (Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics). What one needs to be remember here is that moonlighting is not against the constitution and hence there can be no constitutional violation charge can be brought against the agency or the officer.
The greatest probability in the context of the case is the charge of intentional tort against the officer and a charge of vicarious liability against the agency for hiring police officers that made it a habit of moonlighting while nature of the job that they do demands that they give it their whole and undivided attention. Intentional tort would be a voluntary commission of an act that to a substantial certainty will injure another person. This is in fact a large possibility given the fact that an officer who had finished a job at 3:30 am in the morning could not be expected to be in his full senses or give his best to another job of a nature as sensitive as public security is. The agency can also be brought under the jurisdiction of damages by the plaintiff under the scope of vicarious liability, which states that A legal doctrine that holds the