Civil Rights Final

private citizens can sue a government actor and receive damages for violation of their constitutional

Every person within the jurisdiction of the US who deprives another person of their rights is liable to the party injured

• -show that the action is unconstitutional and in the written policy
• -hard to prove because state policies are clean cut like the constitution itself, rarely any constitutional errors
• -plaintiff can argue that patterns of unconstitutional behavior is an informal policy

a personal harmed by an illegal gov. action cannot sue for an injuction to halt the practice unless the individual can show that they will likely be subjected to suffer that injury again

excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted

no cruel or unusual punishment is applied to the sentencing phase only

evolving standards of decency- applies to the sentencing, conditions of confinement and affirmative obligations

• officials must provide humane conditions of confinement
• adequate food ,clothing, shelter, and medical care
• take reasonable measures to guarantee inmate safety

• objective:is there a substantial risk of serious harm
• subjective: the official must have acted with deliberate indifference to that substantial harm

officer has the knowledge and drew the inference and still did nothing to prevent the harm

• hutto case: prisoners afraid of being raped so they...but officials could not know beforehand when these attacks would happen
• rengolan: rangolan helped convict king..they were placed in the same place even though institution computer said that they should be housed separately...officer was helped liable even though he didn't know...constructive notice

• denial of medical care: inmate has given notice, usually surveillance and obvious
• inmate on inmate violence:could be without notice, hard to prove 1st prong
• guard in inmate sexual assault: easiest to prove, knowledge is there
• Guard on inmate violence: hard to prove, violence is necessary at times

• solitary confinement is cruel but usual 
• very few successful cases that prove that solitary violates the 8th amendment
• mostly cases focusing on mental health and long-term stays
• ex: ashker vs. gov. cali- long term stays proven to be unconstitutional(supermax prison)

• common law
• garner test
• graham test

• very permissible and flexible
• an officer may use all necessary force, including deadly force, to apprehend a fleeing felon

• increased liability and less permissive
• 1. did officer have probable cause to believe suspect posed an immediate threat of serious harm
• 2. was deadly force necessary to prevent escape
• 3. did the officer give the suspect some warning

• to determine if force is subject to a a non-exhaustive list of factors( severity of crime, suspect poses an immediate threat to safety of others, actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight)
• determining if force is reasonable factors must be viewed from the persepctive of the officer on scene and not hindsight
• embody allowance that officers are forced to make split-second judgements in circumstances that are rapidly evolving

• always retain the advantage(elect firearm when there is any unknown threat)
• action is faster than reaction
• the suspect always escalates the situation, not the officer
• their position of authority is always correct

• every action and inaction can be perceived in a threat 
• their training has given them an over inflated sense of threat
• hesitation is fatal
• create narratives to justify their fear

• 4th amendment reasonableness should reflect objective standards of care, and not ratify split-second decision making
• a reasonable well-trained officer, and has received instruction

-new police tactics can create time where policemen can use tactical communication and verbal deescalation methods