If you want to sue a local government
Question 1
If you want to sue a local government, under what is called Monell liability, you will need to show that the act was first done with the prescribed degree of culpability. Also that it is casually associated with the deprivation of federal right.
Congine
2
The constitutional issue in the case is whether Congine’s action conformed to the First Amendment’s provisions for expressive conduct. The issue is on whether Congine’s action of raising the flag upside down was a distress call or an act of heckling.
3,
The Heckler’s Vito must not be allowed in the provided case because Congine was expressing his First Amendment right to expressive speech. As noted in Nelson v Streeter, the police must maintain order in a case where an unpopular speech is deemed to disrupt it. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
4
Yes, the act of forcibly entering Congine’s premise and removing the flag was a violation of the First Amendment. In Congine’s case as he did not raise the flag upside down out of contempt but rather as an expressive speech to raise concern about his position.
5
The city is liable for the violation of the constitution because the Village’s chief of police made a decision that amounted to a municipal policy. He is a final policy making official in the situation.
6
Qualified immunity is accorded to government officials who believed in good faith that their actions were lawful. This means that the officers were reasonably convinced that they were acting according to the law when they violated the constitution.
Kennedy
7
The constitutional question in the case relates to whether Kennedy was qualified to make an appeal at the Supreme Court for a motion that was denied by the district court. The lower court had denied him a motion for summary judgment on his application to protect his constitutional right that allows him access to public spaces.
8
In the case, Kennedy did not qualify to make the appeal since the Supreme Court is only mandated to admit appeals made from the final decisions of lower courts in the hierarchy. In Kennedy’s case, the District Court never made a final decision on his case. There were no summary judgments as the first instance court did not verify that there existed a legitimate dispute built upon material facts that came before a matter of law judgment. Without this, the Supreme Court cannot extend any appeals.
9
In this case, clearly established can be determined by the existence of a codified law that clearly shows the various rights outlined in the constitution that Zucker had violated in relation to Kennedy. As a public official, Zucker is obligated to follow any outlined provisions of the constitution even in cases of receiving a directive from a superior or local policy.
Hearring
10
The constitutional question in the case leans towards whether Sliwowski has qualified immunity for violating BH’s Fourth Amendment‘s rights during the medical examination. The constitution protects private citizens from unnecessary intrusions and searches.
11
In the case, Slowowski cannot claim qualified immunity as there was severe intrusion into BH’s person which is a constitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment. Beside previous cases that Slowaski had dealt with at the school were sufficient to provide ordinary common sense to notice that her actions were offensive to the victim.
12
In this case, clearly established imply that the rights were significantly clear that any reasonable official would recognize that he or she is violating the Fourth Amendment rights of an individual. Slowaski should have noticed that extensive intrusion on BH’s body was uncalled for and a violation of her rights.